Search
document

Document text Analytics

L. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16006/90 • ECHR ID: 001-682

Document date: May 17, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

L. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16006/90 • ECHR ID: 001-682

Document date: May 17, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 16006/90

by F.L.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

17 May 1990, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, Acting President

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 16 June 1989

by F.L. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 January 1990

under file No. 16006/90;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1942 and

presently detained in Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne, Berkshire.

The applicant was convicted and sentenced to three and a half

years' imprisonment in 1986 for indecent assault committed between

1983 and 1985. When he was due to be released he was further charged

with six counts of incest and indecent assault of his children around

February 1985. On 15 August 1988 he pleaded guilty to the offence of

indecent assault as a specimen count. The trial court ordered that

the applicant be committed to a special mental hospital for treatment

of his psychopathic disorder. It also ordered that the remaining five

charges "lie on the file".

It is established practice in English law that where a

defendant is convicted of a serious offence the trial court may order

that other outstanding charges "lie on the file" with the proviso that

they should not be proceeded with without the opinion of the trial

court or the Court of Appeal first being sought so long as the

conviction in respect of the serious charge remains in force. If, on

appeal, the conviction for the serious offence is quashed, it is open

to the prosecution to apply to the trial court or the Court of Appeal

for leave to proceed with the charges left on the file. Such

indictments left on the file are never proceeded with so long as the

conviction on the first indictment remains undisturbed.

The applicant was refused leave to appeal by a single judge on

2 May 1989. He does not appear to have appealed to the Full Court of

Appeal. The orders of the trial court were thereby upheld and the

other charges were therefore not prosecuted.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he was not charged with all the

offences at the outset in 1986 and that leaving charges on the file

constitutes a breach of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. He

wishes to be tried on these charges and be given an opportunity to

prove his innocence.

THE LAW

1. The applicant first complains that all the charges against him

were not preferred at the outset in 1986. He invokes the time

requirements of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention,

the relevant part of which provides that everyone arrested on

suspicion of having committed an offence "shall be brought promptly

before a judge ... and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable

time ...".

However, the Commission is unable to deal with this complaint

because the applicant has failed to observe the six months' rule laid

down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. He was brought to trial by

15 August 1988, but he did not lodge his complaint with the Commission

until 16 June 1989. This aspect of the case must, therefore, be

rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2. The applicant next complains that the procedure whereby five

charges against him have been ordered to "lie upon the file" also

constitutes a breach of the time requirements of Article 5 para. 3

(Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

However, the Commission refers to its previous case-law, in

the context of the complementary time requirement of Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, that the established practice in

English law of not proceeding with other charges so long as the first

conviction remains undisturbed, coupled with the judicial control

over any further proceedings, means that in fact the accused is no

longer faced with any criminal charges which require determination

(No. 3034/67, Roy and Alice Fletcher v. the United Kingdom, Dec.

19.12.67, Collection 25 p. 76). Similar considerations apply to the

applicant's claim under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the

Convention in the present case. The Commission finds that the

applicant no longer in fact risks prosecution for the alleged offences

in 1985 and that, accordingly, the question of any trial within a

reasonable time after his arrest on those charges can no longer arise

in this case.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

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

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant