THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 61428/00
by Jay RUTLAND
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrP. Kūris,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrK. Traja, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Jay Rutland, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Essex, England. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Murphy, a lawyer practising in London.
The Government were represented by their agent Mr Derek Walton, Assistant Legal Adviser.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 August 1999 the applicant was involved in a violent incident with another man, D. On 1 October 1999 the applicant was arrested for an alleged assault on D. The applicant was tried at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 29 and 30 March 2000 on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. His defence was that the incident had been initiated by D. and that he had acted in self-defence. He was acquitted unanimously by the jury on 30 March 2000.
At certain stages of the criminal proceedings the applicant had been required to make contributions, ranging from 34 pounds sterling (GBP) to GBP 37 per week, towards the cost of his legal aid. Following the applicant’s acquittal an application was made to the trial judge for the applicant’s legal aid contribution order to be revoked. Had this been successful, all monies that had been paid by the applicant towards the costs of his legal aid would have been repaid to him. Furthermore, he would not have had any further liability for any payments due under the terms of the contribution order (the applicant having fallen into arrears with some of the contributions that had been requested).
Guidance given to trial judges in the form of a practice direction from the Lord Chief Justice states that judges should, upon acquittal, normally order the repayment of any contribution that the person acquitted has made towards the costs of his or her legal aid, unless there are circumstances which make such a course of action inappropriate.
The trial judge refused the applicant’s application for his costs. He stated his reasons as follows:
“Whatever happened on that night, he [the applicant] brought it entirely upon himself and in the face of a charitable verdict, it is not appropriate to make an application of that kind.”
The applicant did not have any right of appeal against the judge’s ruling.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the decision of the trial judge not to revoke his legal aid contribution order - and the reasons which he gave for it – left the impression that the judge felt that the applicant was culpable notwithstanding his unanimous acquittal and violated his right to be presumed innocent.
The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he was unable to appeal against the judge’s decision.
THE LAW
By letter dated 23 June 2003, the applicant’s solicitors notified the Court that the applicant had reached agreement with the Government to settle the case upon payment of GBP 1,771 and that he no longer wished to pursue his case.
The Court notes that the applicant wishes to withdraw his application in light of the payment of GBP 1,771 by way of compensation and costs.
The Court finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy