CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 décembre 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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER                      Application No. 28891/95                            John McAteer                               against                         the United Kingdom                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 9 December 1997)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   PART I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3                            INTRODUCTION   1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr John McAteer against the United Kingdom on 27 November 1994.   It was registered on 6 October 1995 under file No. 28891/95.   2.    The applicant was represented by Mr Derick Williamson, a solicitor practising in Glasgow.   3.    The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr Martin Eaton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   4.    On 2 July 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) 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."   5.    The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 9 December 1997 it 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.   6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             Mrs   J. LIDDY, President           MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS                L. LOUCAIDES                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           Mr    R. NICOLINI                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   7.    The applicant is a British citizen born in 1965 and currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Dungavel prison, Scotland.   8.    On 14 July 1994 the applicant was convicted by the High Court in Scotland of the offence of attempted extortion and of a contravention of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, the matters to which the first conviction referred having taken place while the applicant was on bail. The applicant was sentenced to two consecutive periods of imprisonment of six years and three months. He was legally aided and represented at the hearing.   9.    The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence for attempted extortion, arguing that there was insufficient corroborated evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive.   10.   The applicant applied to the Scottish Legal Aid Board ("S.L.A.B.") for legal aid for his appeal, submitting with his application a note from his counsel.   By a letter dated 26 October 1994, S.L.A.B. informed the applicant's solicitors that legal aid had been refused on the basis that there were no substantial grounds for the appeal and that it was not reasonable, in the particular circumstances of the case, that legal aid should be made available.   11.   On 18 January 1995 there was an appeal hearing before the High Court of Justiciary sitting as a Court of Appeal ("the High Court"). The applicant had no legal aid and claims that he was not represented at all during his appeal.   The Government submit that the applicant was indeed represented by counsel on 18 January 1995.   At this hearing an application was made to the Court to allow the applicant to lodge additional grounds of appeal.   The High Court allowed the applicant to lodge these additional grounds and the appeal hearing was continued over to a future date for further submissions and a further report from the trial judge.   The applicant's solicitors wrote to S.L.A.B. informing them that the appeal hearing on 18 January had been continued and asking them to reconsider the application for legal aid for the continued appeal.   S.L.A.B replied on 24 February 1995 seeking further information about why the appeal had been continued.   The applicant's solicitors supplied this information on 11 May 1995, enclosing the additional grounds of appeal and the trial judge's report.   On 15 May 1995 S.L.A.B. reconsidered their decision and granted the applicant legal aid.   12.   However   prior to the granting of legal aid, the continued appeal had been heard on 9 May 1995 by the High Court. The applicant represented himself at this hearing. The High Court rejected the applicant's initial ground of appeal relating to the sufficiency of corroboration and also rejected the additional grounds raised at the previous hearing.   Finally, the High Court rejected the applicant's appeal against sentence, stating that the sentence imposed was reasonable in light of the applicant's "formidable" list   of previous convictions.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   13.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) 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.   14.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   15.   After an exchange of correspondence, the Government notified the Commission on 29 October 1997 that they were prepared to pay the applicant £500 and his reasonable costs and expenses actually and necessarily incurred in settlement of the matter.   On 4 November 1997 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's offer.   16.   At its session on 9 December 1997, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an 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.   17.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.          M.F. BUQUICCHIO                   J. LIDDY           Secretary                      President      to the First Chamber           of the First Chamber