CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 décembre 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 }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 12917/87 by Anthony DRUMMOND against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 December 1987, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   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 20 November 1986 by Anthony DRUMMOND against the United Kingdom and registered on 11 May 1987 under file No. 12917/87;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1969 and resident in Glasgow.   The applicant is represented before the Commission by John Macaulay, a solicitor practising in Glasgow.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant was summoned by the Procurator Fiscal to appear at Glasgow District Court on 4 June 1986 to answer a complaint that he had committed a breach of the peace.   Two other persons appeared on the same charge.   The applicant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was fixed for 19 November 1986.           On 22 August 1986 the applicant's solicitor applied to the District Court for legal aid to enable him to defend the charge.   The solicitor supplied the Court with a statement of the applicant's defence and the Court was informed that the applicant had no previous convictions.   The application was refused on 26 August 1986 as "not in the interests of justice".           At the beginning of his trial on 19 November 1986 the applicant made another application for legal aid on the basis that one of his co-accused, who had a similar defence, had been granted legal aid.   This application was refused.   The applicant's solicitor however remained and, at the end of the prosecution case, submitted on the applicant's behalf that there was no case to answer.   The Court accepted this submission and acquitted the applicant.   The refusal of legal aid however resulted in the applicant being liable for the expenses of the case which amount to several hundred pounds.   His income is £33 per week.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that he had insufficient means to pay for legal assistance and that the interests of justice required that he be legally represented.   The applicant was only 16 years old at the time and he alleges that one of his co-accused was granted legal aid on a similar defence which suggests that he was discriminated against. He invokes Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention.           The applicant also complains that the refusal of legal aid meant that he was unable to interview witnesses and establish the case against him beforehand.   He accordingly alleges that he did not have adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence contrary to Article 6 para. 3 (b) of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains that he was refused legal aid for his defence although he had insufficient means and allegedly the interests of justice required that legal aid be granted.           Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention provides that:           "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following         minimum rights:           ...           (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance         of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to         pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the         interests of justice so require".             The Commission does not consider it necessary to decide whether the applicant has fulfilled the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, because it finds the application anyway inadmissible for the following reasons:           The evaluation of the requirements of the interests of justice under Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention lies in the first place with the domestic courts.   In this respect the Commission notes the guidelines issued to Justices of the Peace in Scotland concerning legal aid, which guidelines indicate the relevant factors to be taken into account in deciding whether it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be granted. They include the consideration of whether the charge is grave and, if proved, would place the accused at serious risk of loss of liberty, whether the accused is able to follow the proceedings and state his own case and whether the nature of the defence involves expert examination of a witness for the prosecution.           The applicant alleges, however, that the magistrate in his case ignored the interests of justice in refusing him legal aid on 26 August 1986.           The Commission does not find his allegation substantiated by the facts of the case.   There is no indication in the case-file that in refusing the applicant legal aid, on the grounds that it was not in the interests of justice, the magistrate did not apply the aforementioned guidelines, having regard to the information available to him in the applicant's legal aid application, or that he made his decision on arbitrary grounds.   It is of particular significance that when the magistrate considered the applicant's legal aid application he was aware that the applicant had no previous convictions and that it was likely that he would have deemed the case before him to have been a somewhat trivial matter which would not result, in case of conviction, in more than a fine for the applicant.           In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that it has not been shown in the present case that the interests of justice, within the meaning of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention, required a grant of free legal assistance to the applicant.   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.   2.       The applicant also complains that the refusal of legal aid deprived him of adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.           Article 6 para. 3 (b) (Art. 6-3-b) of the Convention provides as follows:           "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following         minimum rights:           ...           (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation         of his defence."             However, the Commission finds no evidence in the present case that the applicant had inadequate facilities to prepare his defence. This finding is borne out by his acquittal.           It follows that this aspect of the case is also 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          President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)