Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 12917/87

by Anthony DRUMMOND

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

9 December 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 20 November

1986 by Anthony DRUMMOND against the United Kingdom and registered

on 11 May 1987 under file No. 12917/87;

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

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1969 and resident

in Glasgow. The applicant is represented before the Commission by

John Macaulay, a solicitor practising in Glasgow. The facts as

submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was summoned by the Procurator Fiscal to appear

at Glasgow District Court on 4 June 1986 to answer a complaint that he

had committed a breach of the peace. Two other persons appeared on the

same charge. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was

fixed for 19 November 1986.

On 22 August 1986 the applicant's solicitor applied to the

District Court for legal aid to enable him to defend the charge. The

solicitor supplied the Court with a statement of the applicant's

defence and the Court was informed that the applicant had no previous

convictions. The application was refused on 26 August 1986 as "not in

the interests of justice".

At the beginning of his trial on 19 November 1986 the

applicant made another application for legal aid on the basis that one

of his co-accused, who had a similar defence, had been granted legal

aid. This application was refused. The applicant's solicitor however

remained and, at the end of the prosecution case, submitted on the

applicant's behalf that there was no case to answer. The Court

accepted this submission and acquitted the applicant. The refusal of

legal aid however resulted in the applicant being liable for the

expenses of the case which amount to several hundred pounds. His

income is £33 per week.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he had insufficient means to pay

for legal assistance and that the interests of justice required that

he be legally represented. The applicant was only 16 years old at the

time and he alleges that one of his co-accused was granted legal aid

on a similar defence which suggests that he was discriminated against.

He invokes Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention.

The applicant also complains that the refusal of legal aid

meant that he was unable to interview witnesses and establish the case

against him beforehand. He accordingly alleges that he did not have

adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence contrary to

Article 6 para. 3 (b) of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he was refused legal aid for his

defence although he had insufficient means and allegedly the interests

of justice required that legal aid be granted.

Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention provides that:

"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 Commission does not consider it necessary to decide

whether the applicant has fulfilled the exhaustion of domestic

remedies rule laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, because it

finds the application anyway inadmissible for the following reasons:

The evaluation of the requirements of the interests of justice under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention lies in the first place

with the domestic courts. In this respect the Commission notes the guidelines

issued to Justices of the Peace in Scotland concerning legal aid, which

guidelines indicate the relevant factors to be taken into account in deciding

whether it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be granted.

They include the consideration of whether the charge is grave and, if proved,

would place the accused at serious risk of loss of liberty, whether the accused

is able to follow the proceedings and state his own case and whether the nature

of the defence involves expert examination of a witness for the prosecution.

The applicant alleges, however, that the magistrate in his

case ignored the interests of justice in refusing him legal aid on

26 August 1986.

The Commission does not find his allegation substantiated by

the facts of the case. There is no indication in the case-file that

in refusing the applicant legal aid, on the grounds that it was not

in the interests of justice, the magistrate did not apply the

aforementioned guidelines, having regard to the information available

to him in the applicant's legal aid application, or that he made his

decision on arbitrary grounds. It is of particular significance that

when the magistrate considered the applicant's legal aid application

he was aware that the applicant had no previous convictions and that

it was likely that he would have deemed the case before him to have

been a somewhat trivial matter which would not result, in case of

conviction, in more than a fine for the applicant.

In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that it has

not been shown in the present case that the interests of justice,

within the meaning of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention,

required a grant of free legal assistance to the applicant. 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.

2. The applicant also complains that the refusal of legal aid

deprived him of adequate facilities for the preparation of his

defence.

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

follows:

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

...

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation

of his defence."

However, the Commission finds no evidence in the present case

that the applicant had inadequate facilities to prepare his defence.

This finding is borne out by his acquittal.

It follows that this aspect of the case is also 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 President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

DRUMMOND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

DRUMMOND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI