CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 22 octobre 1997

.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 OF                           Application No. 31021/96                       by Ian TAYLOR                       against the United Kingdom                             _______________         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 22 October 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs    J. LIDDY, President            MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 23 October 1995 by Ian TAYLOR against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 April 1996 under file No. 31021/96;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the   Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       15 May 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicant on 15 August 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1971. He is currently detained in Glenochil Prison, in Sterling, Scotland.         The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   A.     The particular circumstances of the case         On 20 December 1994 the applicant was convicted by the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow of a charge of assault and robbery and three charges of contravention of the provision of section 3(1)(b) of the Bail (Scotland) Act 1980. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment on the first charge and to a consecutive period of three months imprisonment on the other three charges.         The applicant had received legal aid from the Scottish legal Aid Board (hereinafter "SLAB") for the preparation of his defence and for legal representation at the trial. This would have also covered legal advice given to the applicant immediately after the trial on the possibility of appealing against conviction and sentence.         On 6 June 1995 the applicant appeared before the High Court of Justiciary at Glasgow to be tried on charges of housebreaking with intent, assault and robbery and contravention to the Bail (Scotland) Act. He pleaded guilty and was given a sentence of four years and three months imprisonment.         The applicant had received legal aid from SLAB for this trial as well. This also covered preliminary legal advice on the possibilities of appeal.         On 20 June 1995 the applicants' solicitors applied to SLAB for emergency legal aid to cover the costs of obtaining counsel's opinion on the prospects of an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant on 6 June 1995, and of instructing Edinburgh agents, marking the appel and lodging the note of appeal. This application was granted on the same day.         Still on 20 June 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal before the High Court of the Justiciary against the sentence he had received on 6 June 1995. The grounds of appeal, which were drafted by his solicitors, were the following: First, the sentence was excessive, because the judge had failed sufficiently to take into account the lengthy sentence already imposed on 20 December 1994. Secondly, the judge had attached insufficient weight to the applicant's personal circumstances and previous record. Thirdly, the judge had paid insufficient weight to the fact that the applicant had pleaded guilty. A hearing was fixed for 19 October 1995.         On 4 October 1995 the applicant applied for extension of time in order to appeal against his conviction of 20 December 1994. The application, which had been drafted and signed by the applicant himself, was refused by a single judge of the High Court of Justiciary on the same day. On 5 October 1995 the applicant renewed the application before the full court. On 10 October 1995 the applicant was informed that his renewed application for extension of time would be heard by the High Court of Justiciary on 19 October 1995.         On 11 October 1995 the applicant was informed by his solicitors that counsel had advised that his appeal against the sentence he had received on 6 June 1995 lacked any prospects of success. On 17 October 1995 the applicants' solicitors wrote to the applicant and advised him that, in view of the opinion of counsel, he would not be granted legal aid for his appeal against the sentence of 6 June 1995 and that he would be, accordingly, required to conduct the appeal himself. They also advised him that, if he persisted in his appeal, he risked having his sentence increased by the appeal court.         On 19 October 1995 the High Court of the Justiciary siting as an appellate court granted the applicant leave to abandon his appeal against the sentence of 6 June 1995 and his application for extension of time in order to appeal against the conviction of   20 December 1994.   B.     Relevant domestic law         Since the applicant was convicted prior to 26 September 1995, the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 applied in his case insofar as the availability of legal aid was concerned.         Section 25 (2) of the 1986, which applied to legal aid in connection with appeals against conviction or sentence in criminal proceedings, provided that legal aid was available in connection with such an appeal if SLAB was satisfied of the following:         "(a) ... after consideration of the financial circumstances of       the applicant, that the expenses of the appeal cannot be met       without undue hardship to the applicant or his dependants; and         (b)   where the applicant is the appellant, that he has       substantial grounds for making the appeal and that it is       reasonable, in the particular circumstances of the case, that       legal aid should be made available to him;"   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention of the unavailability of legal aid for his appeals.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 23 October 1995 and registered on 16 April 1996.         On 26 February 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         The Government's written observations were submitted on 15 May 1997. The applicant replied on 15 August 1997.   THE LAW         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention of the unavailability of legal aid for his appeals.         Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention provides as follows:         "3.   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 Government submit that it was not impossible to be granted legal aid in Scotland at the time of the applicant's appeal and that the applicant never applied for legal aid for legal representation at the hearing of 19 October 1995.         The applicant accepts that this was so and holds his solicitors responsible.         The Commission notes that the applicant could have applied for legal aid for legal representation at the hearing of 19 October 1995 but failed to do so. Since counsel had advised that the applicant's appeal against sentence lacked any prospects of success it may be open to doubt whether the applicant would have obtained legal aid for the purpose of this appeal alone. However, the Commission further notes that the applicant had also lodged a renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and that this application was listed for hearing at the same date as his appeal against sentence, namely 19 October 1995. In these circumstances, the Commission cannot find that an application for legal aid for legal representation at this hearing would have stood no prospects of success. The applicant did not submit such an application. Accordingly, the Commission considers that he cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (c) (Art. 6-3-c) of the Convention.         The Commission, therefore, concludes that the applicant's complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention and that it must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber