Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 44037/18 Patrick Stephen Alexander COPINGER against the United Kingdom lodged on 11 September 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Patrick Stephen Alexander Copinger , is a British national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Caithness.

The circumstances of the case

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . The applicant was a qualified solicitor practising in partnership with his wife in a law firm in Scotland.

4 . In January 2012 the Law Society of Scotland, which regulates the conduct of solicitors in Scotland, commenced a financial inspection of the law firm ’ s books. Thereafter, the Law Society conducted an investigation into the law firm between 8 and 10 February 2012. The investigation identified several breaches of the Law Society ’ s Accounts Rules. The Law Society found that there was a shortfall in the law firm ’ s client account (estimated at 70,000 pounds sterling (GBP)) and that payments out of that account had been used to subsidise the running of the firm and for partner drawings. The Law Society also found inaccuracies in the firm ’ s books.

5 . On 15 February 2012 an interim judicial factor was appointed by the Court of Session to take control of the law firm ’ s assets. The applicant was immediately suspended from practising. The appointment of the judicial factor was made permanent in March 2012.

6 . The applicant was struck off the register of solicitors following proceedings in the Scottish Solicitors ’ Discipline Tribunal (“SSDT”). The SSDT ’ s written determination is dated 2 March 2017. They concluded that on the basis of the evidence the applicant had deliberately sought to disguise the shortfall in the firm ’ s client account, and that the applicant ’ s acts amounted to professional misconduct.

7 . The applicant ’ s appeal against the determination of the SSDT was dismissed by the Inner House of the Court of Session on 20 March 2018.

8 . While the disciplinary proceedings were ongoing, the applicant was interviewed by police in July 2015 in respect of the Law Society ’ s allegations.

9 . The applicant was cautioned and charged on 6 July 2015 and the case was reported by the police to the Crown Office with a view to a prosecution on 25 September 2015.

10 . On 24 December 2018, the case was reported to Crown Counsel as a pre-petition case. Crown Counsel then instructed that proceedings be taken against the applicant in the Sheriff Court in respect of one charge of embezzlement. As of February 2019, the applicant had not appeared in the Sheriff Court on petition charged with the offence.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that the criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, what was the cause of the delay between 6 July 2015, when the applicant was charged, and 24 December 2018, when the case was reported to Crown Counsel as a pre-petition case?

2. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint relating to the length of the criminal proceedings?