CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 6 octobre 1987

.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 } Application No. 11224/84   Terence EWING against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 6 October 1987)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 19) ......................................     1 -   3           A.       The application (paras. 2 - 6) ...............       1           B.       The proceedings (paras. 7 - 14) ..............     1 -   2           C.       The present Report (paras. 15 - 19) ..........       3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 20 - 94) .....................................     4 - 13           A.       Relevant domestic law and practice                 (paras. 20 - 36) .............................     4 -   7                   a.   The charge (para. 21) ....................       4                   b.   The committal for trial                     (paras. 22 - 23) .........................       4                   c.   The bill of indictment                     (paras. 24 - 26) .........................       5                   d.   The trial (paras. 27 - 29) ...............       5                   e.   Appeal to the Court of Appeal                     (paras. 30 - 34) .........................       6                   f.   Appeal to the House of Lords                     (paras. 35 - 36) .........................     6 -   7           B.       The particular circumstances of the case                 (paras. 37 - 94) .............................     7 - 13     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES         (paras. 95 - 138) .....................................   14 - 21           A.       The applicant (paras. 95 - 116) ..............    14 - 17                   a.   Relevant domestic law and practice                     (paras. 95 - 97) .........................      14                   b.   The merits of the case                     (paras. 98 - 116) ........................    14 - 17                       aa.   General                          (paras. 98 - 100) ...................    14 - 15                       bb.   The complexity of the case                          (paras. 101 - 102) ..................      15                       cc.   The conduct of the applicant                          (paras. 103 - 108) ..................    15 - 16                       dd.   The conduct of the judicial                          authorities (paras. 109 - 116) ......    16 - 17           B.       The Government                 (paras. 117 - 138) ...........................    17 - 21                   a.   General                     (paras. 117 - 119) .......................    17 - 18                   b.   The pre-trial period                     (paras. 120 - 127) .......................    18 - 19                   c.   The appeal period before the Court of Appeal                     (paras. 128 - 134) .......................    19 - 20                   d.   The appeal period before the House of Lords                     (paras. 135 - 136) .......................      21                   e.   The length of the proceedings as a whole                     (paras. 137 - 138) .......................      21   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 139 - 160) ...................................    22 - 26           A.       Point at issue                 (para. 139) ..................................      22           B.       Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                 (paras. 140 - 141) ...........................      22           C.       The length of the proceedings and the relevant                 periods to be taken into account                 (paras. 142 - 145) ...........................    22 - 23           D.       The reasonableness of the length of                 proceedings (paras. 146 - 159) ...............    23 - 26                   a.   The complexity of the case                     (paras. 146 - 149) .......................    23 - 24                   b.   The conduct of the parties                     (paras. 150 - 159) .......................    24 - 26                           aa.   The pre-trial period                              (paras. 150 - 152) ..............    24 - 25                           bb.   The appeal period                              (paras. 153 - 157) ..............    25 - 26                           cc.   The length of the proceedings as a                              whole (paras. 158 - 159) ........      26           E.       Conclusion (para. 160) .......................      26     APPENDIX I    - History of the proceedings before the                Commission ....................................    27 - 28   APPENDIX II   - Second decision on the admissibility of the                application ...................................    29 - 41   APPENDIX III - First decision on the admissibility of the                application ...................................    42 - 43   APPENDIX IV   - Decision to re-open the examination of part of the                application ...................................    44 - 46     I.       INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.     A.       The application     2.       The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1952 and living in London.   3.       He is represented before the Commission by Mr.   David M. Greene, Solicitor, Messrs.   Edwin Coe and Calder Woods, Solicitors, London.   4.       The Government of the United Kingdom are represented by their Agents MM. Ian D. Hendry and Michael C. Wood, both of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   5.       The applicant was arrested on 3 December 1979 and charged with criminal offences on 5 December 1979.   He was remanded in custody for two weeks and then released on bail.   He was finally arrested on 13 March 1980 and remanded in custody until his trial.   He faced charges for offences committed before 5 December 1979 and charges for offences committed during the bail period.   His trial lasted over a month and resulted in his conviction on 20 May 1981 for 24 offences and a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment.   Appeal proceedings up to the House of Lords terminated on 24 October 1983 with the dismissal of his petition for leave to appeal, although in the meantime the Court of Appeal had reduced the applicant's sentence to a total of 5 years' imprisonment.   The applicant was therefore released from prison on 12 August 1983, before the House of Lords' decision.   6.       The applicant complains to the Commission of the length of the proceedings as a whole (5 December 1979 to 24 October 1983), as well as the length of proceedings prior to his trial and on appeal.   He claims to be a victim of a breach of the reasonable time requirement laid down in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     B.       The proceedings     7.       The application was introduced on 9 September 1983 and registered on 26 October 1984.   It concerned various complaints about the criminal proceedings described above, including the complaint relating to the length of criminal proceedings, both as a whole and at each jurisdictional stage.   8.       On 15 March 1985 the Commission declared the whole application inadmissible.   By letter of 12 June 1985 the applicant drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the Commission's rejection of the length complaint for non-observance of the six months' rule was based on facts which were shown to be untrue.   Therefore, on 18 October 1985 the Commission decided to re-open its proceedings concerning that part of the application relating to the length of the criminal proceedings in question.   It also decided to invite the applicant to re-submit an application form and certain essential documents.   9.       On 12 December 1985 the Commission decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure and to invite them to present before 27 March 1986 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   These observations were submitted on 24 March 1986, to which the applicant replied on 9 April 1986 in person, and on 2 July 1986 through his legal representative.    The applicant had been granted legal aid by the Commission on 16 May 1986.   10.      On 3 December 1986 the Commission declared the application admissible, limited to the issue of length of proceedings under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   11.      On 7 March 1987 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties on the merits of the case.   This hearing was held on 6 May 1987.   The applicant attended, represented by Mr.   D.M. Greene, Solicitor, and Ms.   J. Eales, Adviser.   The Government were represented by Mr.   M.C. Wood, Agent, the Rt.   Hon.   Sir Patrick Mayhew QC, MP, then Solicitor General, Counsel, Mr.   T.F.H. Cassel, Counsel, Miss E.S. Wilmshurst, Law Officers' Department, Adviser, Mr.   C.M.L. Osborne, Home Office, Adviser, and Mr.   M. McKenzie, Criminal Appeal Office, Adviser.   12.      On 26 June 1987 the applicant submitted supplementary written observations on the merits of the case, upon which the Government made no written comments in reply.   13.      On 6 October 1987 the Commission considered the merits of the application and took their final votes on the case.   On the same date the Commission adopted the text of the Report.   14.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28   para. b of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which a settlement can be reached.   C.       The present Report     15.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD                              J.A. FROWEIN                              E. BUSUTTIL                              B. KIERNAN                              A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                              A. WEITZEL                              H. DANELIUS                              G. BATLINER                              H. VANDENBERGHE                         Sir   Basil HALL     16.      The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 6 October 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the   Convention.   17.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           1)       to establish the facts, and           2)       to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of its                 obligations under the Convention.   18.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's second decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II. The Commission's first decision on admissibility forms Appendix III, and its decision to re-open its examination of part of the application forms Appendix IV.   19.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       Relevant domestic law and practice     20.      In criminal proceedings for serious offences there may be up to six procedural stages:           a.       charging of the suspect by the police with an offence;           b.       examination of the evidence by a magistrate and                 committal for trial;           c.       signing of the bill of indictment;           d.       trial;           e.       appeal against conviction or sentence, or both,                 to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division);           f.       appeal to the House of Lords on a certified point of                 law of public importance.     a.       The charge         ----------   21.      The investigation of a criminal case is ordinarily conducted by the police in the United Kingdom, either on their own initiative or at the instance of the prosecuting authorities.   The charging of the suspect with an offence is done by the police in culmination of the investigatory process if they consider that sufficient evidence exists to commence a prosecution.     b.       The committal for trial         -----------------------   22.      An examining magistrate considers the sufficiency of the evidence before committing the suspect to the Crown Court for trial.   23.      These proceedings are not part of the investigation.   The purpose of committal proceedings is to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.   Committal proceedings are a safeguard against the improper or unjustifiable committal of an accused person to stand trial.   The magistrate will examine the evidence presented to him, will listen to any argument and will then decide whether there is enough evidence on which a reasonable jury if properly directed could find him guilty.   If the magistrate finds the evidence insufficient, he will discharge the accused person. (See also point d., para. 27 below.)   c.       The bill of indictment         ----------------------   24.      The bill of indictment (the formal document embodying the charge or charges brought by the Crown against the accused person) is drawn up from the committal papers by the Crown Court authorities.   25.      Several charges may be joined in one indictment (Section 4 Indictments Act 1915), particularly where they concern the same facts or a series of similar offences (Rule 9 Indictment Rules 1971).   Where the Crown Court judge orders, inter alia, that two or more offences charged against that person be tried together, a voluntary bill of indictment is made.   26.      Where it is considered desirable to have separate trials for any one or more offences charged in an indictment, the Crown Court may so order (Section 5(3) Indictments Act 1915).     d.       The trial         ---------   27.      It is an important discretionary judicial function of both magistrates and trial judges to fix the respective dates of committal proceedings and of the trial, and to deal with the parties' applications for directions.   In fixing dates the judicial authorities are required to consider the representations made to them by both the prosecution and the defence.   A balance has to be struck between the interests of the accused, whose liberty may be at stake, and that of the efficient administration of justice and the avoidance of unreasonable delays.   All courts, including the Central Criminal Court by which the applicant was tried, regularly review cases which are awaiting trial in order to reduce protracted delays.   If the judicial authorities have doubts as to the merits of an application for an adjournment it is proper for them to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and ensure that sufficient time is allowed for the preparation of the defence.   28.      The prosecution or the defence may concede certain facts, which admission will be taken as conclusive evidence of the point (Section 10 (1) Criminal Justice Act 1967).   The prosecution is obliged to prove every material allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The defence are entitled to put the prosecution to strict proof of purported evidence and to object to the admissibility of evidence. However, it is common for facts which cannot be seriously disputed to be conceded by the defence, thus avoiding the necessity of oral evidence on them.   Use of this procedure results in considerable savings in both time and money.   29.     Proceedings before the Central Criminal Court, where the applicant was tried, are marginally longer than elsewhere, because it hears the more serious, complex cases.   In 1980/81 the period from remand to trial was normally about a year.   e.       Appeal to the Court of Appeal         -----------------------------   30.      Appeal against conviction or sentence, or both, lies to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).   The accused may appeal as of right on a point of law, but only with the leave of the Court of Appeal on other matters.   Whether to grant leave to appeal is usually decided by a single judge where any element of fact is involved.   He considers the grounds of appeal drafted by Counsel for the appellant, together with any transcript from the shorthand notes of relevant parts of the trial that may be put before him.   31.      As to this, Counsel for the appellant has the responsibility of informing the Criminal Appeal Office as to which parts of the trial proceedings he wants transcribed for the purposes of the appeal.   In order to reduce time and cost, particularly in a case like the applicant's where the trial lasted some 22 working days, only those parts of the trial shorthand notes which are relevant to the grounds of appeal will be ordered to be transcribed by the Criminal Appeal Office.   Counsel will then be supplied with the transcript and be given an opportunity to finalise the appellant's grounds of appeal.   Until Counsel does this, the papers cannot be placed before the single judge for his decision and the case cannot proceed to a hearing before the Full Court of Appeal.   The single judge's decision whether to grant leave or not is usually made without hearing oral argument.   An appellant may apply to the Full Court against any decision of the single judge.   32.      The appeal courts perform the same discretionary judicial function as the lower courts in fixing hearing dates (see point d, para. 27 above).   33.      If the Full Court of Appeal, made up of three judges, dismisses an appeal, the appellant (or the prosecution) may request the court to certify that the case involves a point of law of general public importance and to grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords. If this question cannot be decided immediately the matter must be adjourned until it is possible to reassemble the same judges.   The Court of Appeal may issue such a certificate, but nevertheless refuse leave to appeal to the House of Lords.   34.      Proceedings before the Court of Appeal in 1980/81 normally took about a year, the Court of Appeal having received 6097 leave to appeal applications in 1981.   Appeals may be expedited if the prisoner would complete his sentence before the appeal hearing.     f.       Appeal to the House of Lords         ----------------------------   35.      An appeal lies to the House of Lords against certain decisions of the Court of Appeal.   The appeal is available to both parties to the proceedings provided that the Court of Appeal has certified that the case involves a point of law of public importance and either the leave of the Court of Appeal has been given or the House of Lords itself grants leave.   36.      Applications for leave to appeal to the House of Lords are made by way of a petition, which must be lodged within 14 days of the refusal of leave by the court below, although an application may be made by a defendant to extend that time limit when the petition is lodged out of time.   The petition is then referred to an Appeal Committee, which will consider whether it is fit for an oral hearing. Where a petition is not considered fit, the Clerk of the Parliaments will notify the parties of its dismissal.     B.       The particular circumstances of the case     37.      On 3 December 1979¹ the applicant was arrested and two days later was charged with procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception and with obtaining property by deception (hereafter referred to as Case A).   These offences had allegedly been committed in October 1979.   He was remanded in custody by a magistrate and released on bail on 19 December.   38.      On 13 March 1980 the applicant was again arrested and charged on 19 March with five counts of forgery, five counts of uttering a forged document and five counts of theft (hereafter referred to as Case B).   These offences were allegedly committed during the bail period.   He was remanded in custody on 20 March until his trial.   39.      The applicant was subsequently charged with three counts of forgery, two counts of uttering a forged document and three counts of theft, offences allegedly committed between June 1979 and January 1980 (hereafter referred to as Case C).   40.      The offences charged arose out of separate incidents involving the theft and forgery of cheques and investigations by two police forces.   41.      On 10 April 1980 the applicant was committed for trial by the Mansion House Justices to the Central Criminal Court in respect of Case A.   On 13 June 1980 he was committed for trial by the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court to the Inner London Crown Court in respect of Case B.   42.      On 7 July 1980 the indictment in Case A was preferred.   On 6 August and 9 September 1980 the applicant made successful applications to change his solicitors in this case.   43.      On 19 September 1980 the Inner London Crown Court ordered the hearing in Case B to be listed for the week commencing 24 November 1980.   ________________   ¹   Since the Commission's decision on admissibility (Appendix II hereto,    p. 39), the parties have now agreed that the applicant was arrested on    3 December 1979 and not 5 December 1979, as stated in the decision.    In his supplementary written observations on the merits (26.6.87) the    applicant included a chronology of events with which the Government    had no disagreement, and which gave 3 December 1979 as the arrest date.   44.      On 5 November 1980 the applicant instructed his solicitors to delay the hearing of Case A at their discretion.   45.     The next day the defence applied to the Inner London Crown Court for an adjournment of the proposed hearing in Case B fixed for 24 November 1980, as more time was required to obtain handwriting evidence.   The application was granted and the prison authorities were instructed to prepare a medical report on the applicant.   The hearing date was fixed for 5 January 1981 after the judge had expressed his concern about the adjournment because of the applicant's remand in custody.   46.      On 10 November 1980 the defence requested an independent psychiatric report in the context of Case A.   On 25 November the trial date in this case was fixed for 9 February 1981.   47.      On 28 November 1980 Case B was transferred to the Central Criminal Court.   48.      The applicant was committed for trial by the Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court to the Central Criminal Court in respect of Case C on 4 December 1980.   49.      On 17 December 1980 the Central Criminal Court contacted the parties by telephone to confirm the hearing date in Case B for 5 January 1981.   Two days later the prosecution successfully applied for an adjournment and the hearing date was then fixed for 6 April 1981.   The defence also made an application for second Counsel to hold a "noting brief".   On 29 December 1980 the defence applied for the appointment of a handwriting expert in this case.   50.      On 5 January 1981 the Central Criminal Court confirmed with both parties that Case C would be listed for hearing with Case B on 6 April 1981.   51.      On 9 January 1981 the defence applied for the appointment of a handwriting expert in Case A also.   52.      On 19 January 1981 the defence requested medical reports on the applicant in respect of Case B.   53.      On 2 February 1981 the Central Criminal Court fixed the hearing date in Case A for 6 April 1981 (along with Cases B and C). All parties agreed on the change of fixture and that the Metropolitan Police solicitor should take over the whole prosecution.   54.      On 10 February 1981 Mr.   Justice Russell gave the prosecution leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment to amalgamate the three indictments into one, because the offences charged were of a similar kind and criminal pattern, and it was deemed desirable in the interests of justice, and the economy of time and expense, to hold a joint trial before the same court.   The resultant indictment contained 25 counts, relating to eleven different sets of circumstances, but only three criminal offences, namely theft, forgery and uttering a forged document.   The applicant was given notice of the voluntary bill of indictment on 19 February.   55.      On 13 March 1981 the defence applied for legal aid for second Counsel to hold a full brief, the prosecution having instructed a Leading Junior Counsel.   The application was granted on 27 March 1981.   56.      The applicant's trial opened on 6 April 1981 and closed on 20 May 1981 with his conviction on 24 out of the 25 counts.   It lasted 22 working days.   The first eight days of the trial were occupied with legal submissions (voir dire).   The Court adjourned for Easter on 15 April, the trial resuming on 22 April when the jury was sworn.   The prosecution case lasted 14 working days and finished on 13 May.   During that time the jury went out on 27 occasions whilst submissions in law were made to the judge.   The applicant had instructed his solicitors that no admissions whatsoever were to be made under Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and that the prosecution were to be put to strict proof of every ingredient of every single count.    For Case A there were 12 witnesses and 17 exhibits; for Case B, 31 witneses and 50 exhibits; for Case C, 21 witnesses and 21 exhibits.   57.      On 22 April 1981, 16 days after the opening of the case, on the day the jury was empanelled, the applicant's Counsel applied to the trial judge to release the case for trial by another judge, on the ground that he was prejudiced.   The applicant also applied for severance of the indictment with an order for five separate trials. These applications were refused.   58.      After the normal submissions at the end of the prosecution case, the applicant did not give evidence, but made a statement from the dock.   The judge's summing up lasted just over a day.   The jury took 4 hours and 15 minutes to reach their verdict as to the applicant's guilt.   59.      On conviction, the applicant was sentenced to a total of seven years' imprisonment, and ordered to pay compensation of £11,701.85p and to make a contribution of up to £5,000 towards prosecution costs.   60.      The applicant lodged his Notice of Appeal against conviction and sentence with the Criminal Appeal Office on 17 June 1981.   The grounds of appeal against conviction, settled by Counsel, contained 29 separate allegations of errors of law made by the trial judge.   61.      On 18 June 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office requested the trial documents from the Central Criminal Court.   62.      On 24 June 1981 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal, inter alia, to deal with his appeal urgently.   63.      On 30 June 1981 the trial documents were received from the Central Criminal Court, but found to be incomplete.   64.      On 1 July 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office replied to the applicant's request of 24 June 1981 that his appeal had to await the transcription of the relevant parts of the trial.   The Criminal Appeal Office also requested the missing documents from the Central Criminal Court.   65.      On 7 July 1981 the applicant wrote to the Criminal Appeal Office drawing their attention to relevant parts of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in respect of his appeal.   66.      On 23 July 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office received the documents requested from the Central Criminal Court.   The next day the Assistant Registrar of the Criminal Appeal Office wrote to Defence Counsel asking him to specify which parts of the trial proceedings he wished to have transcribed.   The Office also replied to the applicant's letter of 7 July 1981.   67.      On 30 July 1981 Defence Counsel replied to the Assistant Registrar's inquiry, but his letter was not received by the lawyer dealing with the case in the Criminal Appeal Office until early September because the letter omitted the case reference number.   68.      On 5 August 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office requested a reply from Counsel to their letter of 24 July.   The next day they received an inquiry from the applicant as to whether the relevant transcript had been ordered and whether it was to include the judge's summing up, to which inquiry the Office replied that the transcript had not yet been ordered because Defence Counsel's reply was awaited.   69.      On 12 August 1981 the applicant's solicitors requested that the single judge grant legal aid for two Counsel.   70.      On or about 10 September 1981 Defence Counsel's letter of 30 July 1981 was received by the case lawyer in the Criminal Appeal Office, which on 24 September wrote to Counsel asking him to reconsider his transcript requirements.   71.      On 6 October 1981 the Assistant Registrar ordered part of the transcript from the shorthand writers, i.e. the list of witnesses, the judge's summing up and the proceedings after the verdict had been given.   72.      On 18 October 1981 Counsel sent a holding reply (an acknowledgement) to the Criminal Appeal Office's letter of 24 September.   73.      On 27 October 1981 the Assistant Registrar wrote to Defence Counsel expressing concern over the fact that the applicant had been convicted 5 months before and the need to submit the applicant's leave to appeal application to a single judge of the Court of Appeal as soon as possible.   He requested Counsel to deal urgently with the question of his transcript requirements and informed him of the partial transcript already ordered on 6 October.   74.      On 31 October 1981 Defence Counsel replied about the transcript.   75.      On 3 November 1981 the applicant wrote to the Criminal Appeal Office about the progress of his case and the question of legal aid.   76.      On 12 November 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office received Prosecuting Counsel's transcript requirements.   77.      On 1 December 1981 the applicant again wrote to the Criminal Appeal Office asking, inter alia, if the appeal would now proceed.   78.      On 9 December 1981 the Criminal Appeal Office wrote to Defence Counsel enclosing a copy of Prosecuting Counsel's letter of 12 November.   In the former letter, Defence Counsel was informed of the Office's several unsuccessful attempts to contact him and he was asked to contact the Office as soon as possible.   A further pressing reminder was sent to Defence Counsel on 15 December, followed by a letter dated 8 January 1982 warning that, unless he clarified his transcript requirements before 15 January, the case would go before the Court in its present state.   Counsel replied on 12 January 1982.   79.      In the meantime the applicant had again written to the Criminal Appeal Office on 22 December 1981 asking about the progress of the transcript and for information concerning his Counsel.   80.      On 15 January 1982 the Criminal Appeal Office ordered a further transcript.   However, as it later transpired, the order was partly defective because the principal evidence of two witnesses was requested, whereas what was required was a transcript of those witnesses' evidence during the preliminary voir dire proceedings.   81.      On 5 March 1982 the Criminal Appeal Office forwarded the transcript to Defence Counsel, to which he replied on 16 March that it was partly defective.   The next day the Criminal Appeal Office ordered the correct transcript to be provided no later than 7 April.   In fact it was received on 29 March 1982 and forwarded on 30 March to Defence Counsel with the request that he finalise his grounds of appeal.   82.      On 6 April 1982 the Criminal Appeal Office contacted Defence Counsel as to when the finalised grounds of appeal might be expected, and were told to expect them by 27 April.   Defence Counsel was reminded by the Office on 28 April 1982 and he sent the perfected grounds of appeal on 4 May 1982.   83.      On 5 May 1982 the Assistant Registrar granted legal aid for one Defence Counsel for the submission of the applicant's case directly to the Full Court, thus avoiding the single judge stage.   The case papers were then referred to the case lawyer in the Criminal Appeal Office for a summary of them to be made for the members of the Court.   84.      On 11 May 1982 the applicant wrote to the Criminal Appeal Office about the progress of his case and followed this with a letter dated 21 June 1982 about the legal aid order and asking the Registrar to instruct Counsel.   85.      On 7 July 1982 the Assistant Registrar signed the legal aid order.   86.      On 30 July 1982 the applicant was informed by the Criminal Appeal Office that his appeal would be heard on 21 October 1982 and Defence Counsel was asked to provide his estimate of the length of the appeal hearing.   87.      On 24 September 1982 Defence Counsel's estimate that the case would take one-and-a-half to two days was received by the Criminal Appeal Office.   The case had, however, been listed on the basis that it would only take one day and, as the Court was to be differently constituted on 22 October, the case could not be allowed to overrun.   Lord Justice Lawton directed that a new hearing date be fixed.   This was done on 1 October 1982, with the hearing date fixed for 16 and 17 December 1982.   88.      The applicant's appeal was heard during four whole days, between 16 and 21 December 1982.   The Court allowed the appeal against conviction on three counts in the indictment and quashed those convictions.   The total sentence of imprisonment was reduced from seven to five years.   Judgment was reserved until a later date.   89.      On 29 and 30 December 1982 the applicant wrote to the Criminal Appeal Office requesting information and leave to appeal to the House of Lords respectively.   He sent a reminder on 10 January 1983 and received a reply dated 20 January.   He again wrote on 7 February 1983 enquiring about the progress in his case, to which the Criminal Appeal Office replied on 17 February that the Court of Appeal would deliver its judgment on 11 March 1983.   90.      When judgment (consisting of 41 pages) was given on 11 March 1983 Defence Counsel reserved his position in relation to the possibility of applying to the Court of Appeal to certify that a point of law of general public importance was raised by the case.   As Mr. Justice Staughton had only returned to London to give the Court's reasons and was not further available, the certificate question was adjourned "to a date to be fixed some time at the beginning of next term".   91.      On 15 June 1983 the Criminal Appeal Office informed the applicant that his application to certify a point of law would be heard on 29 June, on which day the Court of Appeal issued such a certificate, but refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.   The point of law certified by the Court of Appeal concerned the admissibility, under the Criminal Evidence Act 1965, of bank statements prepared by a computer.   92.      The applicant then lodged a direct petition for leave to appeal in the Judicial Office of the House of Lords on 13 July 1983. The petition was presented to the House on 18 July after the expiry of the two clear days required by the relevant Practice Directions.   The petition was in fact lodged out of time, but the House extended the time limit.   Having been presented to the House, the petition was referred to an Appeal Committee for a decision as to whether it should receive an oral hearing.   93.      On 10 October 1983 the Committee reported to the House that the petition was fit for an oral hearing; and on 24 October the petition was heard and dismissed.   The report of the Appeal Committee was agreed to by the House on the same day.   The delay between the date of presentation and the date of determination was largely caused by the summer recess: the House rose on 28 July 1983 and judicial business was resumed on 4 October 1983.   During the recess the applicant could have requested the matter to be expedited.   However, he did not do this for, having just been released from prison on 12 August 1983, he was then in the proces