CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 février 1992

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 16212/90                                James RITCHIE                                   against                             the UNITED KINGDOM                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 13 February 1992)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page       INTRODUCTION .............................................       1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .........................       2   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED ...............................       3                                  INTRODUCTION     1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by James RITCHIE against the United Kingdom on 3 April 1989.   It was registered on 26 February 1990 under file No. 16212/90.         The applicant was represented before the Commission by Messrs. Ian McCarry, solicitors, of Glasgow.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   2.     On 17 April 1991 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application partially admissible insofar as it concerned his complaint that he was refused legal aid for his appeal against conviction.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition       referred to it:              a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,            undertake together with the representatives of the            parties an examination of the petition and, if need            be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of            which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary            facilities, after an exchange of views with the            Commission;              b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the            disposal of the parties concerned with a view to            securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the            basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this            Convention."   3.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 February 1992 adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   4.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G. H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  A. V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                                                         PART I                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     5.     The applicant is a British citizen born on 7 January 1960 and is currently detained at Shotts Prison, serving a life sentence.   On 19 December 1985, the applicant had been convicted of six charges, inter alia, of rape and indecent assault.   The applicant's solicitor drafted grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence and the applicant applied for legal aid for representation at his appeal.   The Scottish Legal Aid Board refused legal aid on the ground that the grounds of appeal were not substantial.   The applicant's appeal was heard on 29 September 1989 and he appeared unrepresented.   The appeal was dismissed.   6.     The applicant complained to the Commission under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention that he did not receive legal aid for his appeal though the interests of justice required it.   He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his counsel had insufficient time to prepare for the trial, of the behavour of his lawyer and that his sentence was excessive.   7.     On 17 April 1991, the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 3 (c) and rejected his remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.                                     PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED     8.     Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   9.     In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   10.    Between April and October 1991 there were negotiations between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   By letter dated 21 June 1991 the Government informed the Commission of the Practice Note which had been circulated to the appeal courts concerning legal aid:                               "PRACTICE NOTE                 TO ALL APPEAL COURT CHAIRMEN AND CLERKS         In any appeal where legal aid has been refused and the       court considers that, prima facie, an appellant may have       substantial grounds for taking the appeal and it is in the       interests of justice that the appellant should have legal       representation in arguing these grounds, the court shall       forthwith adjourn the hearing and make a recommendation       that the decision to refuse legal aid should be reviewed.         4 December 1990                            LORD JUSTICE GENERAL"     11.    By letter dated 26 July 1991 the Government referred to the above practice note and offered to make an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £900 as to damages and to pay the costs which the applicant has actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum.   By letter dated 7 October 1991, the applicant accepted this offer.   12.    At its session on 13 February 1992 the Commission found that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   13.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber              (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)