CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 mai 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  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)