AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 26701/95 Application No. 27771/95
by Peter WOOD by Peter DAVY
against the United Kingdom against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the applications introduced on 4 May 1994 and
6 April 1995 by Peter WOOD and Peter DAVY against the United Kingdom
and registered on 14 March and 30 June 1995 under files Nos. 26701/95
and 27771/95 respectively;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
8 November 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicants on 17 December 1996 and on 10 March 1997 respectively;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant in Application No. 26701/95 is a United Kingdom
citizen born in 1946 and residing in Bradford.
The applicant in Application No. 27771/95 is a United Kingdom
citizen born in 1969 and residing in Harlington. Before the Commission
he is represented by Messrs. Turberville Woodbridge, solicitors of
Uxbridge.
The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
a. Application No. 26701/95
On 31 March 1994 the applicant was arrested and brought to a
police station. While at the police station he allegedly signed a form
requesting legal assistance.
Shortly thereafter the applicant was brought before the Bradford
Magistrates' Court, where it was explained to him that his arrest was
in connection with his failure to pay community charge. The applicant
again requested legal assistance. The Court interrupted the hearing
and allowed some time for the applicant to obtain the assistance of a
solicitor. The applicant was contacted by a solicitor, who told him
that she was dealing only with criminal matters and could not represent
him in his case. Upon the resumption of the hearing, the solicitor
appeared before the Court and explained that she was unable to assist
the applicant.
The Court continued the hearing. The applicant stated that he
was homeless, unemployed and that he was in receipt of income support.
The Court committed the applicant to 21 days in prison for failure to
pay community charge.
The applicant served 21 days in prison. Later he allegedly
contacted a solicitor and inquired whether he could obtain legal aid
to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, but was told that legal
aid was not available.
b. Application No. 27771/95
At the relevant time the applicant was unemployed.
In December 1993 he was summoned to appear before Uxbridge
Magistrates' Court for non-payment of the community charge. He was
committed to prison for 42 days on 25 February 1994, suspended.
The applicant was again summoned to the Court on 29 July 1994:
he paid arrears which had accrued, and the Court re-suspended the
committal warrant. On 28 October 1994 the Court ordered that the
matter be adjourned for two weeks until 11 November 1994 in order for
the applicant to produce evidence of his financial situation.
On 11 November 1994, even though the applicant was in a position
to pay the arrears, the Court made a committal order against him and
he served the term of imprisonment.
Legal aid was not available in these proceedings and the
applicant was not represented.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Neither the civil nor the criminal legal aid scheme provides for
full representation before the magistrates in community charge
commitment proceedings. The "Green Form" scheme provides two hours'
worth of help from a solicitor, and can include preparation for a court
case, but does not provide for representation. An extension of the
costs limit can be granted by the Legal Aid Board. Assistance by way
of Representation ("ABWOR") enables the court, in limited
circumstances, to appoint a solicitor who happens to be within the
court precincts for purposes other than the provision of ABWOR to
represent a party who would not otherwise be represented. The
appointment may be made either of the court's own motion or on
application by a solicitor. The court is under no obligation to advise
a party of the possibility of an appointment. The Duty Solicitor
Scheme, which provides representation to accused in criminal cases
before magistrates, does not extend to community charge proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant in Application No. 26701/95 complains under
Article 6 of the Convention that in the space of one hour he was "taken
from the street", brought before a court, and sent to prison without
having been able to defend himself. Thus, he was refused legal
assistance.
The applicant in Application No. 27771/95 alleges a violation of
Article 6 of the Convention, referring generally to the case of Benham
v. the United Kingdom (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 June 1996).
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
Application No. 26701/95 was introduced on 4 May 1994 and was
registered on 14 March 1995. Application No. 27771/95 was introduced
on 6 April 1995 and was registered on 30 June 1995.
On 29 November 1995 (in Application No. 27771/95) and on 15 May
1996 (in Application No. 26701/95) the Commission took partial
decisions communicating to the respondent Government the applicants'
complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and declaring the
remainder of the applications inadmissible. The Commission did not
request written submissions pending the outcome of the case of Benham
v. the United Kingdom before the Court.
On 2 July 1996 the Commission invited the respondent Government
to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
applications.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
8 November 1996. The applicant in Application No. 26701/95 replied on
17 December 1996. The applicant in Application No. 27771/95 replied
on 10 March 1997, after an extension of the time-limit.
THE LAW
1. The Commission, having regard to the similarities of the
applications, finds it convenient to join them in accordance with
Rule 35 of its Rules of Procedure.
2. The applicants allege violations of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention because of the absence of legal aid before the Magistrates'
Courts.
The Government and the applicant in Application No. 27771/95
agree that based on the Court's judgment in Benham v. the United
Kingdom there has been a breach of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3
(Art. 6-1+6-3) taken together.
The applicant in Application No. 26701/95 submits, inter alia,
that if he had been legally represented he might not have gone to
prison and that it is wrong to bring someone before a court and send
him to prison while refusing legal assistance.
Having examined these complaints, the Commission finds that they
cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, and that no other
ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established. The
Commission considers that the determination of these complaints should
depend on an examination of the merits.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO JOIN APPLICATIONS Nos. 26701/95 AND 27771/95;
unanimously,
DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE,
without prejudging the merits of the cases.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy