Search
document

Document text Analytics

HAMILTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26288/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3386

Document date: November 27, 1996

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

HAMILTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26288/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3386

Document date: November 27, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 26288/95

by Martin HAMILTON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 27 November 1996, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

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 24 January 1994

by Martin HAMILTON against the United Kingdom and registered on

25 January 1995 under file No. 26288/95;

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

3 January 1996 and the correspondence between the Secretariat and

the applicant and his representatives since January 1996;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1961 and

residing in Glasgow. He is currently in prison.

On 21 April 1992 the High Court convicted the applicant and three

other persons for having conspired to rob the office of a Glasgow

company. The applicant was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, two

others of his accomplices to 15 years' imprisonment and the fourth

accused to 12 years' imprisonment. The applicant was legally

represented during the trial.

The applicant appealed against his conviction. He inquired

unsuccessfully about the possibilities to obtain legal aid but did not

submit a formal application for legal aid to the Scottish Legal Aid

Board.

On 24 June 1993 the applicant and two of his accomplices appeared

before the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh for the hearing of

their appeal. The applicant was represented by counsel who informed

the Court that the applicant had been refused legal aid but had made

private funds available for the purposes of his appeal. The

applicant's counsel sought and obtained a continuation of the appeal

for a later date.

The appeal came before the Court again on 7 October 1993, when

the applicant presented his case in person. He stated that the trial

judge had misdirected the jury, referring to several particular

passages of the minutes from the trial. The Court dismissed the

appeal.

COMPLAINTS

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

Convention that he did not receive legal aid for purposes of the appeal

proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 24 January 1994 and registered

on 25 January 1995.

On 18 October 1995 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Government's written observations were submitted on 3 January

1996. On 8 January 1996 a copy of these observations was sent to the

applicant's representatives who were invited to submit, before

27 February 1996, their observations in reply. No such observations

were received by the Commission.

On 5 March 1996 the Commission granted the applicant legal aid.

By letters sent to the applicant's representatives and to him

directly on 10 April 1996 and again on 9 May 1996 by registered mail,

the applicant was invited to state whether he intended to pursue his

application and was warned about the provision of Article 30

para. 1 (a) of the Convention. On 15 May 1996 the applicant's

representatives replied and requested an extension "of the hearing of

the case" because they could not "attend Strasbourg" at the end of

June. They also mentioned that they had had lost contact with the

applicant for some time due to his transfer to another prison, but that

they had found his new address. On 22 May 1996 the applicant's

solicitors were informed that the time-limit for a written reply to the

Government's observations could not be extended as the extension had

been requested long after the expiry of the initial time-limit. The

Secretariat's letter also indicated to the applicant's representatives

that if they nevertheless wished to submit observations in reply, they

could do so.

On 1 July 1996 the applicant's representatives wrote to the

Commission stating only that the applicant still intended to pursue his

application.

On 2 July 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) considered the

state of the proceedings in the present case and, noting that the

applicant has not replied to the Government's observations, decided to

put to him and to his representatives specific questions on the

admissibility and the merits of the application.

On 8 July 1996 the Secretariat sent to the applicant's

representatives and to the applicant directly, by registered mail,

letters inviting them to reply in writing, before 2 September 1996, to

the specific questions put. The letters also indicated that failure

to answer could lead the Commission to conclude that the applicant did

not seriously intend to pursue his application. No reply was received.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant, represented by counsel,

initially did not react when invited to submit observations in reply

to the Government's observations. Not until two months and a half

after the expiry of the time-limit set for this purpose, and only

following two warning letters, did the applicant's solicitors express

their intention to pursue the matter. However, when given ample

opportunity to do so, by answering specific questions, they did not

react. Furthermore, the applicant's representatives were repeatedly

warned that this lack of activity on their part might lead the

Commission to the conclusion that the applicant did not seriously

intend to pursue the application.

Moreover, after March 1996 the Secretariat contacted the

applicant directly, by registered mail, but no response was received.

In these circumstances, the Commission concludes pursuant to

Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that the applicant

does not intend to pursue his application and that it is, therefore,

no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition.

Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human Rights as defined in this Convention which require the

further examination of this application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant