Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22
September 2000
Howarth v. the United Kingdom - 38081/97
Judgment 21.9.2000 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal proceedings – delay between original non-custodial sentence and custodial sentence ordered following reference by Attorney-General: violation
Facts: The applicant was interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office in March 1993 in connection with offences arising out of a company takeover. He was charged in July 1993 and his trial took place between October 1994 and February 1995. He was convicted on several counts and sentenced to 220 hours’ of community service in March 1995. He lodged an appeal against his conviction and in April 1995 the Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal for a review of the sentence. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed in March 1997. The following day the Court of Appeal heard the Attorney-General’s reference and, holding that the sentence was unduly lenient, imposed a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The relevant period in assessing the length of the proceedings began when the applicant was interviewed in March 1993 and ended in March 1997, thus totalling a little over four years. The time between the first sentencing in March 1995 and the second in March 1997 is of particular concern. The combination of the appeal, a co-accused’s appeal and the Attorney-General’s reference rendered the case more complex than it might have been otherwise, and it was logical to deal with the appeals before the reference. However, by the time the first instance proceedings ended, the issues had been aired at the trial and the transcipts were ready and the Court of Appeal does not appear to have regarded the reference as giving rise to any particular difficulty. No convincing reasons have been supplied to justify the two years taken to deal with the appeal, and indeed no judicial activity took place between December 1995 and March 1997 other than in relation to legal aid.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 3 – There is no indication of treatment attaining the minimum level of severity required under this provision.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimous).
Article 41 – The Court found that there was an insufficient causal connection between the delay in sentencing and the pecuniary losses claimed by the applicant, which were due in essence to the custodial sentence imposed on him and his disqualification as a company director. It awarded the applicant £750 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and £8,000 in respect of costs.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy