Search
document

Document text Analytics

HIGGINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14778/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45506

Document date: February 13, 1992

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

HIGGINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14778/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45506

Document date: February 13, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 14778/89

John HIGGINS

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 13 February 1992)

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 on Human Rights by John HIGGINS against

the United Kingdom on 14 January 1989. It was registered on 15 March

1989 under file No. 14778/89.

The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. John

Carroll, a solicitor from Glasgow. The respondent Government were

represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office.

2. On 17 April 1991 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."

3. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 February 1992

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.

4. 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

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1946 and is resident

in Edinburgh.

6. On 29 October 1986, the applicant was convicted of three charges

of contravening the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and sentenced to two

years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against conviction.

On 21 May 1988, the Scottish Legal Aid Board refused his application

for legal aid for representation at the appeal. The applicant's appeal

was heard on 12 November 1988 and he appeared unrepresented. The

advocate depute appeared for the Crown. The appeal was dismissed.

6. The applicant complained to the Commission under Article 6 of the

Convention that he did not receive legal aid for his appeal though the

interests of justice required it.

7. On 17 April 1991, the Commission declared admissible the

applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Between April 1991 and January 1992 there were negotiations

between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case. By

letter dated 26 July 1991 the Government informed the Commission of the

Practice Note which had been circulated to the appeal courts concerning

legal aid:

"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"

11. By letter dated 29 November 1991 the Government referred to the

above practice note and 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 7 January 1992, the applicant accepted this

offer.

12. At its session on 13 February 1992 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.

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

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant