Search
document

Document text Analytics

V. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11465/85 • ECHR ID: 001-570

Document date: March 3, 1986

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

V. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11465/85 • ECHR ID: 001-570

Document date: March 3, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 March

1986 the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H. C. KRÃœGER Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 September 1984 by

N.V. against the United Kingdom and registered on 25 March

1985 under file N° 11465/85;

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 an Irish citizen, currently detained at HM Prison,

Wakefield. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. M. J.

Staines, solicitor, of Dublin.

In August 1984 the applicant's lawyer made several attempts to obtain

permission from the United Kingdom prison authorities to visit his

client at Brixton Prison, where the applicant was then held on remand

pending committal for various firearms charges. The lawyer was told

that he would have to apply not more than seven days before the

intended visit, but that no problems were expected. The week before

he wished to visit, the lawyer telephoned the Solicitors' Office at

the prison, and was told to give not more than five days' notice but

that, again, no difficulties were foreseen. The lawyer duly

telephoned two days later and was told that he would not be allowed to

visit as the applicant already had an English lawyer under the United

Kingdom legal aid scheme, and there was therefore a danger of

"touting". The lawyer protested that he would not, in any event, be

entitled to represent the applicant before the United Kingdom courts,

and he arranged for a letter to be delivered to the prison from the

English lawyer confirming that she did not object to a visit from the

Irish lawyer. On that basis, the prison authorities said that they

would re-consider the matter. The following day (three working days

before the proposed visit), the lawyer was told that there was no

objection to the professional visit and the lawyer bought an airline

ticket and arranged accommodation in London.

The next day the lawyer was told that he would not be allowed to visit

his client. He could make a "social" visit, but that would take two

to three weeks to organise, and would therefore fall after the

committal proceedings against the applicant, which were due to take

place the following week.

The lawyer did not, therefore, visit the applicant and he complained

inter alia to the Law Society and to the Home Office. It is apparent

that the applicant was able to communicate by letter with his Irish

lawyer, and the applicant did, indeed, change solicitors under the

United Kingdom legal aid scheme before the committal proceedings.

On 6 August 1985 the Irish lawyer received an apology from the Home

Office and was told that he could visit his client on a professional

basis in prison. The lawyer has, in fact, since visited the applicant

in Wakefield Prison on such a "legal" visit, although the applicant

had by then been convicted.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c of

the Convention (Art. 6-3-c) in that his Irish lawyer was not able to

visit him before committal to discuss the nature and quality of his

legal aid representation under the United Kingdom legal aid scheme.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of an alleged violation of Art. 6, para. 3,

sub-para. c of the Convention (Art. 6-3-c) in that his Irish lawyer

was not afforded full lawyers' facilities for visiting him in

connection with his legal aid representation on charges pending before

the United Kingdom criminal courts.

Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c), so far as relevant,

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 ...

It is a necessary limitation on the right contained in Art. 6, para.

3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) that the lawyer chosen to defend the

applicant must be capable of appearing before the domestic courts, as

otherwise the assistance is of no effect. The Commission considers

that Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) does not give

defendants a right to be defended before domestic criminal courts by a

foreign-qualified lawyer where domestic law does not provide for such

representation. In the United Kingdom at present, a lawyer not

qualified in the United Kingdom as a solicitor or barrister as the

case may be is not entitled to represent a client before the ordinary

criminal courts.

In the absence of any possibility for the applicant's Irish lawyer to

represent the applicant before the United Kingdom courts, the

Commission considers that the applicant's claim that his rights under

Art. 6, para. 3, sub-para. c (Art. 6-3-c) had been violated must be

regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27,

para. 2 of the Convention (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant