CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 avril 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 18123/91                                    W. W.                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 6 April 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by W. W. against the United Kingdom on 23 October 1990. It was registered on 24 April 1991 under file No. 18123/91.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Anthony Mahon, a solicitor from Glasgow.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   3.     On 14 October 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible.   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."   4.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 6 April 1993 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.   5.     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                   J.-C. GEUS                   M. NOWICKI                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1968.   He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at Shotts Prison, Lanarkshire.   7.     The applicant and his brother stood trial at Glasgow High Court for attempted murder and various other offences on 22 February 1989.   8.     The applicant was identified in court as one of the victim's assailants by three eye-witnesses.   One of these eye-witnesses had been accompanying the victim on 6 November 1988, the day of the attack. This eye-witness had pointed out the applicant at an identification parade which was held on 11 November 1988. The applicant had legal representation when he took part in the identification parade.   9.     The applicant was convicted of attempted murder on 24 February 1989.   He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for the offence.   10.    The applicant applied to the Scottish Legal Aid Board for legal aid for the purpose of appealing against his conviction and sentence. His application was refused on 7 September 1989 on the basis that the appeal appeared to be without merit.   The applicant proceeded to conduct his own appeal.   11.    On 13 October 1989 the High Court of Justiciary adjourned the hearing of the applicant's appeal so that the applicant could provide and investigate evidence on the question of perjury of an essential Crown witness.   12.    On 25 October 1989 solicitors acting on the applicant's behalf submitted a fresh application for legal aid.   This application was refused on 1 November 1989 since it did not point to substantial grounds of appeal.   This view was taken in light of the fact that the aforesaid solicitors did not provide any evidence to indicate that perjury had in fact been committed.   13.    The applicant presented his appeal on 14 June 1990.   He requested another adjournment in order to request legal aid again.   However his request was refused by the Court. The applicant addressed the Court for 1 1/2 hours and made numerous submissions in support of lengthy grounds of appeal.   14.    It appears from the transcript of the appeal court's judgment that the applicant's grounds of appeal against conviction included complaints concerning the conduct of the defence by his counsel, that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on a number of occasions, that the police had failed to conduct properly an identification parade in which the applicant appeared, that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and that the conviction rested solely on eye-witness evidence.   15.    The Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence and, in the process of so doing, stated that the applicant had "wholly failed to satisfy it that there was any miscarriage of justice". As regarded his complaints about his counsel, the Court found no substance in the criticisms made and referred to the note of the trial judge which described the defence as "excellent".   16.    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.   17.    Following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal, a new practice was introduced with regard to legal aid in the appeal court.                               "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"   18.    On 14 October 1992, the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 6 para. 3(c) of the Convention.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   19.    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.   20.    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.   21.    Between October 1992 and February 1993 there were negotiations between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   22.    By letter dated 16 December 1992 the Government offered to make an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £1200 as to damages and to pay the applicant's legal costs. By letter dated 10 February 1992, the applicant accepted this offer.   23.    At its session on 6 April 1993 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.   24.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber            (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)