CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 septembre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22 September 2000 S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 39360/98 Decision 5.9.2000 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Judge or other officer exercising judicial power Automatic refusal of bail: admissible In 1978, the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment after having killed his wife’s lover. In 1996, he was arrested on suspicion of having sexually abused his daughters and remanded in custody. He was charged with sexual offences. The Magistrates’ Court decided that he should be kept in custody. He was indicted on three counts of rape, three counts of indecent assault and one count of indecency. The Magistrates’ Court rejected his first application for bail on the ground that there was a risk that he might commit further offences or interfere with witnesses. He appeared again before the Magistrates’ Court, which considered that he should remain in custody. A date was fixed for another bail application, the applicant having obtained the assurance of a surety from a person with whom he could reside, at a substantial distance from his home, during the trial. However, according to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, bail could not be granted to a person charged with or convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape if he or she had previously been convicted of any of these offences. In the case of a previous conviction of manslaughter or culpable homicide, the restriction applies if the person was sentenced to imprisonment for the previous conviction. The Magistrates’ Court was made aware of the applicability of section 25 of the 1994 Act and the scheduled hearing for examining the bail application did not take place. The applicant was finally acquitted and released. Admissible under Articles 5 § 3 and   § 5, and 13. [NB. The case raises the same issue as in Caballero v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 2000, in which the Government conceded a violation.]   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes