Search
document

Document text Analytics

McATEER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28891/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45953

Document date: December 9, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

McATEER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28891/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45953

Document date: December 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 28891/95

John McAteer

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 December 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr John McAteer against the United

Kingdom on 27 November 1994. It was registered on 6 October 1995 under

file No. 28891/95.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr Derick Williamson, a

solicitor practising in Glasgow.

3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their

Agent, Mr Martin Eaton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

4. On 2 July 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) 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."

5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 9 December 1997 it 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.

6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1965 and currently

serving a sentence of imprisonment in Dungavel prison, Scotland.

8. On 14 July 1994 the applicant was convicted by the High Court in

Scotland of the offence of attempted extortion and of a contravention

of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, the matters to which the first

conviction referred having taken place while the applicant was on bail.

The applicant was sentenced to two consecutive periods of imprisonment

of six years and three months. He was legally aided and represented at

the hearing.

9. The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence for

attempted extortion, arguing that there was insufficient corroborated

evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive.

10. The applicant applied to the Scottish Legal Aid Board

("S.L.A.B.") for legal aid for his appeal, submitting with his

application a note from his counsel. By a letter dated

26 October 1994, S.L.A.B. informed the applicant's solicitors that

legal aid had been refused on the basis that there were no substantial

grounds for the appeal and that it was not reasonable, in the

particular circumstances of the case, that legal aid should be made

available.

11. On 18 January 1995 there was an appeal hearing before the High

Court of Justiciary sitting as a Court of Appeal ("the High Court").

The applicant had no legal aid and claims that he was not represented

at all during his appeal. The Government submit that the applicant was

indeed represented by counsel on 18 January 1995. At this hearing an

application was made to the Court to allow the applicant to lodge

additional grounds of appeal. The High Court allowed the applicant to

lodge these additional grounds and the appeal hearing was continued

over to a future date for further submissions and a further report from

the trial judge. The applicant's solicitors wrote to S.L.A.B.

informing them that the appeal hearing on 18 January had been continued

and asking them to reconsider the application for legal aid for the

continued appeal. S.L.A.B replied on 24 February 1995 seeking further

information about why the appeal had been continued. The applicant's

solicitors supplied this information on 11 May 1995, enclosing the

additional grounds of appeal and the trial judge's report. On

15 May 1995 S.L.A.B. reconsidered their decision and granted the

applicant legal aid.

12. However prior to the granting of legal aid, the continued appeal

had been heard on 9 May 1995 by the High Court. The applicant

represented himself at this hearing. The High Court rejected the

applicant's initial ground of appeal relating to the sufficiency of

corroboration and also rejected the additional grounds raised at the

previous hearing. Finally, the High Court rejected the applicant's

appeal against sentence, stating that the sentence imposed was

reasonable in light of the applicant's "formidable" list of previous

convictions.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (First Chamber) 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.

14. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

15. After an exchange of correspondence, the Government notified the

Commission on 29 October 1997 that they were prepared to pay the

applicant £500 and his reasonable costs and expenses actually and

necessarily incurred in settlement of the matter. On 4 November 1997

the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the

applicant accepted the Government's offer.

16. At its session on 9 December 1997, the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an 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.

17. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant