EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 18123/91
W. W.
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 6 April 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by W. W. against
the United Kingdom on 23 October 1990. It was registered on
24 April 1991 under file No. 18123/91.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by
Anthony Mahon, a solicitor from Glasgow. The respondent Government
were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
3. On 14 October 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights
declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out
its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as
follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition
referred to it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,
undertake together with the representatives of the
parties an examination of the petition and, if need
be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of
which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary
facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the
disposal of the parties concerned with a view to
securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the
basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this
Convention."
4. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 6 April 1993 adopted
this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the
Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the
solution reached.
5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
J.-C. GEUS
M. NOWICKI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
6. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1968. He is
currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at Shotts Prison,
Lanarkshire.
7. The applicant and his brother stood trial at Glasgow High Court
for attempted murder and various other offences on 22 February 1989.
8. The applicant was identified in court as one of the victim's
assailants by three eye-witnesses. One of these eye-witnesses had been
accompanying the victim on 6 November 1988, the day of the attack.
This eye-witness had pointed out the applicant at an identification
parade which was held on 11 November 1988. The applicant had legal
representation when he took part in the identification parade.
9. The applicant was convicted of attempted murder on
24 February 1989. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the
offence.
10. The applicant applied to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for legal
aid for the purpose of appealing against his conviction and sentence.
His application was refused on 7 September 1989 on the basis that the
appeal appeared to be without merit. The applicant proceeded to
conduct his own appeal.
11. On 13 October 1989 the High Court of Justiciary adjourned the
hearing of the applicant's appeal so that the applicant could provide
and investigate evidence on the question of perjury of an essential
Crown witness.
12. On 25 October 1989 solicitors acting on the applicant's behalf
submitted a fresh application for legal aid. This application was
refused on 1 November 1989 since it did not point to substantial
grounds of appeal. This view was taken in light of the fact that the
aforesaid solicitors did not provide any evidence to indicate that
perjury had in fact been committed.
13. The applicant presented his appeal on 14 June 1990. He requested
another adjournment in order to request legal aid again. However his
request was refused by the Court. The applicant addressed the Court for
1 1/2 hours and made numerous submissions in support of lengthy grounds
of appeal.
14. It appears from the transcript of the appeal court's judgment
that the applicant's grounds of appeal against conviction included
complaints concerning the conduct of the defence by his counsel, that
the trial judge had misdirected the jury on a number of occasions, that
the police had failed to conduct properly an identification parade in
which the applicant appeared, that the jury's verdict was inconsistent
and that the conviction rested solely on eye-witness evidence.
15. The Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and
sentence and, in the process of so doing, stated that the applicant had
"wholly failed to satisfy it that there was any miscarriage of
justice". As regarded his complaints about his counsel, the Court found
no substance in the criticisms made and referred to the note of the
trial judge which described the defence as "excellent".
16. The applicant complained to the Commission under
Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention that he did not receive legal
aid for his appeal though the interests of justice required it.
17. Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal, a new practice
was introduced with regard to legal aid in the appeal court.
"PRACTICE NOTE
TO ALL APPEAL COURT CHAIRMEN AND CLERKS
In any appeal where legal aid has been refused and the
court considers that, prima facie, an appellant may have
substantial grounds for taking the appeal and it is in the
interests of justice that the appellant should have legal
representation in arguing these grounds, the court shall
forthwith adjourn the hearing and make a recommendation
that the decision to refuse legal aid should be reviewed.
4 December 1990
LORD JUSTICE GENERAL"
18. On 14 October 1992, the Commission declared admissible the
applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
19. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view
to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with
Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to
submit any proposals they wished to make.
20. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on
the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the
possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
21. Between October 1992 and February 1993 there were negotiations
between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.
22. By letter dated 16 December 1992 the Government offered to make
an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £1200 as to damages and to pay
the applicant's legal costs. By letter dated 10 February 1992, the
applicant accepted this offer.
23. At its session on 6 April 1993 the Commission found that the
parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It
further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
24. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy