Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31021/96

by Ian TAYLOR

against the United Kingdom

_______________

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 22 October 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

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 application introduced on 23 October 1995

by Ian TAYLOR against the United Kingdom and registered on

16 April 1996 under file No. 31021/96;

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

15 May 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 15 August 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1971. He is currently

detained in Glenochil Prison, in Sterling, Scotland.

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

parties, may be summarised as follows:

A. The particular circumstances of the case

On 20 December 1994 the applicant was convicted by the High Court

of Justiciary at Glasgow of a charge of assault and robbery and three

charges of contravention of the provision of section 3(1)(b) of the

Bail (Scotland) Act 1980. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment

on the first charge and to a consecutive period of three months

imprisonment on the other three charges.

The applicant had received legal aid from the Scottish legal Aid

Board (hereinafter "SLAB") for the preparation of his defence and for

legal representation at the trial. This would have also covered legal

advice given to the applicant immediately after the trial on the

possibility of appealing against conviction and sentence.

On 6 June 1995 the applicant appeared before the High Court of

Justiciary at Glasgow to be tried on charges of housebreaking with

intent, assault and robbery and contravention to the Bail (Scotland)

Act. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence of four years and three

months imprisonment.

The applicant had received legal aid from SLAB for this trial as

well. This also covered preliminary legal advice on the possibilities

of appeal.

On 20 June 1995 the applicants' solicitors applied to SLAB for

emergency legal aid to cover the costs of obtaining counsel's opinion

on the prospects of an appeal against the sentence imposed on the

applicant on 6 June 1995, and of instructing Edinburgh agents, marking

the appel and lodging the note of appeal. This application was granted

on the same day.

Still on 20 June 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal before the

High Court of the Justiciary against the sentence he had received on

6 June 1995. The grounds of appeal, which were drafted by his

solicitors, were the following: First, the sentence was excessive,

because the judge had failed sufficiently to take into account the

lengthy sentence already imposed on 20 December 1994. Secondly, the

judge had attached insufficient weight to the applicant's personal

circumstances and previous record. Thirdly, the judge had paid

insufficient weight to the fact that the applicant had pleaded guilty.

A hearing was fixed for 19 October 1995.

On 4 October 1995 the applicant applied for extension of time in

order to appeal against his conviction of 20 December 1994. The

application, which had been drafted and signed by the applicant

himself, was refused by a single judge of the High Court of Justiciary

on the same day. On 5 October 1995 the applicant renewed the

application before the full court. On 10 October 1995 the applicant was

informed that his renewed application for extension of time would be

heard by the High Court of Justiciary on 19 October 1995.

On 11 October 1995 the applicant was informed by his solicitors

that counsel had advised that his appeal against the sentence he had

received on 6 June 1995 lacked any prospects of success. On

17 October 1995 the applicants' solicitors wrote to the applicant and

advised him that, in view of the opinion of counsel, he would not be

granted legal aid for his appeal against the sentence of 6 June 1995

and that he would be, accordingly, required to conduct the appeal

himself. They also advised him that, if he persisted in his appeal, he

risked having his sentence increased by the appeal court.

On 19 October 1995 the High Court of the Justiciary siting as an

appellate court granted the applicant leave to abandon his appeal

against the sentence of 6 June 1995 and his application for extension

of time in order to appeal against the conviction of 20 December 1994.

B. Relevant domestic law

Since the applicant was convicted prior to 26 September 1995, the

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 applied in his case insofar as the

availability of legal aid was concerned.

Section 25 (2) of the 1986, which applied to legal aid in

connection with appeals against conviction or sentence in criminal

proceedings, provided that legal aid was available in connection with

such an appeal if SLAB was satisfied of the following:

"(a) ... after consideration of the financial circumstances of

the applicant, that the expenses of the appeal cannot be met

without undue hardship to the applicant or his dependants; and

(b) where the applicant is the appellant, that he has

substantial grounds for making the appeal and that it is

reasonable, in the particular circumstances of the case, that

legal aid should be made available to him;"

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the

Convention of the unavailability of legal aid for his appeals.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 23 October 1995 and registered

on 16 April 1996.

On 26 February 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

15 May 1997. The applicant replied on 15 August 1997.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c)

of the Convention of the unavailability of legal aid for his appeals.

Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention provides as

follows:

"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

...

c. to defend himself in person or through legal

assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means

to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the

interests of justice so require".

The Government submit that it was not impossible to be granted

legal aid in Scotland at the time of the applicant's appeal and that

the applicant never applied for legal aid for legal representation at

the hearing of 19 October 1995.

The applicant accepts that this was so and holds his solicitors

responsible.

The Commission notes that the applicant could have applied for

legal aid for legal representation at the hearing of 19 October 1995

but failed to do so. Since counsel had advised that the applicant's

appeal against sentence lacked any prospects of success it may be open

to doubt whether the applicant would have obtained legal aid for the

purpose of this appeal alone. However, the Commission further notes

that the applicant had also lodged a renewed application for an

extension of time to appeal against his conviction and that this

application was listed for hearing at the same date as his appeal

against sentence, namely 19 October 1995. In these circumstances, the

Commission cannot find that an application for legal aid for legal

representation at this hearing would have stood no prospects of

success. The applicant did not submit such an application. Accordingly,

the Commission considers that he cannot claim to be a victim of a

violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention.

The Commission, therefore, concludes that the applicant's

complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the

Convention and that it must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI