FOURTH SECTION
Applications nos 2100/10 and 2183/10
Alan WHITE against the United Kingdom
and Shinder Singh GANGAR against the United Kingdom
lodged on 7 January 2010 and 4 January 2010 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The first applicant, Mr Alan White, is a British national who was born on 26 September 1958 and is currently detained in HMP Sudbury. He is represented before the Court by Mr Mark Davies of Frisby & Co., a firm of solicitors practising in Stafford.
2. The second applicant, Mr Shinder Singh Gangar, is a British national who was born on 21 August 1961 and is currently detained in HMP Lowdham Grange. He is represented before the Court by Janes Solicitors, a firm of solicitors practising in London.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants, who were both accountants, were partners in the firm Dobbs White. In October 1998 the Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) began investigating the firm. This investigation found that there had been no violation of the Banking Act 1987. In January 2000 the FSA began a second investigation which was subsequently transferred to the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) and which formed the basis for the criminal charges that followed in 2005.
5. In January 2001 the SFO and the Money Laundering Investigation Team (“MLIT”) raided the offices of Dobbs White, as well as the second applicant’s home, and seized documents. The second applicant was subsequently arrested on suspicion of money laundering and granted bail. In October 2002 the SFO carried out a second raid, following which they arrested both applicants on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud. Both applicants were granted bail.
6. In November 2002 the MLIT charged the second applicant with money laundering.
7. In March 2003 the SFO carried out a third raid, following which both applicants were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt. They were again granted bail.
8. The trial of the first applicant in relation to the money laundering charge was due to commence in September 2003. However, following an application by the MLIT an adjournment was granted and the trial was postponed until September 2004. On 17 September 2004 HHJ Faber, sitting in Wood Green Crown Court, stayed the prosecution on grounds of abuse of process by reason of, amongst other things, a violation of the reasonable time guarantee contained within Article 6 § 1.
9. On 13 October 2005 the SFO charged both applicants with conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt in connection with an alleged bribe. It was the prosecution’s case that after 2002 the applicants had developed in the United Kingdom a Ponzi scheme referred to as the “Dobbs White” scheme. The value of the alleged fraud was put at over USD 200 million. Both applicants were granted bail.
10. On 16 November 2005 the applicants made their first appearance in the Crown Court. In February 2006 the prosecution provided a case summary to the applicants and on 31 March 2006 HHJ Stokes fixed the original trial window for Easter. At the same time the second applicant was remanded in custody but he was released in November 2006 as the SFO had failed to extend the custody time limits.
11. On 21 November 2006 Langstaff J set the trial date for 8 May 2007. However, at the same time nearly all defence counsel withdrew due to the expected clash of the trial with other professional commitments. A new defence team was subsequently appointed.
12. In December 2006 and March 2007 the prosecution made two late and substantial disclosures of further evidence, consisting of thousands of pages.
13. On 19 March 2007, an application was made jointly by the prosecution and the new defence team to postpone the trial as neither side consided that the case could be made ready in time for the original trial date. The defence sought an adjournment until October 2007. A limited postponement of eight weeks was granted until 3 July 2007.
14. In early June 2007 the applicants dismissed their legal representatives, alleging certain deficiencies in the quality of the service they provided. The applicants then sought to transfer their representation orders. On 12 June 2007 the judge refused. Later, following a written application and oral submissions, for which the applicant was assisted by counsel, the judge indicated that he might transfer the representation order. However, one of the requirements of new leading counsel was that the trial be pushed back again to January 2008. The judge again refused as he considered that the applicants had not given a good reason for dismissing their previous representation.
15. The applicants’ trial began on 3 July 2007 and lasted for more than seven months. On 22 February 2008 the applicants were convicted by a jury, on a majority verdict, of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt. On 11 April 2008 both applicants were sentenced to seven-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. They argued that their conviction was unsafe because, inter alia, the trial judge had refused to transfer the representation order. The application for permission to appeal was refused on 7 July 2009.
16. Following the trial confiscation proceedings were brought against both applicants. On 1 April 2009 all parties to the proceedings agreed that the applicants had each benefited by over GBP 60,000,000. Contested hearings took place in October 2009 and June 2010. Provisional judgment was given on 2 July 2010 and amended and finalised on 28 July 2010 following a further hearing. In respect of the first applicant, a confiscation order was made in the sum of GBP 1,166,339.00 to be paid within eighteen months, with a sentence in default of five years’ imprisonment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they have not had a final determination of the criminal proceedings against them within a reasonable time.
The applicants further complain under Article 6 § 3(b) of the Convention that they did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defences.
The applicants also complain under Article 6 § 3(c) of the Convention that they were not able to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choice.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. When did the criminal proceedings relating to the charges of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt begin and end for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the length of these criminal proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy