CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 128 March 2010 Allen v. the United Kingdom - 18837/06 Judgment 30.3.2010 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-4 Procedural guarantees of review Refusal of judge to allow legally-represented defendant to attend hearing of prosecution appeal against an order for her release on bail: violation   Facts – The applicant was granted bail on drugs charges by a deputy district judge. As the prosecution gave notice that it wished to appeal, the applicant remained in custody. Her counsel arranged with the Prison Service for her to be present at the court building on the day of the appeal, but the judge hearing the appeal refused to allow her to attend the hearing as it would set a precedent for other defendants in custody. The judge allowed the prosecution’s appeal and refused bail, on the grounds that there was a risk of the applicant absconding or obstructing the course of justice. The applicant was refused permission to apply for judicial review. Law – Article 5 § 4: With regard to the applicant’s complaint that she had not been permitted to attend the hearing of the prosecution’s appeal against bail, it was relevant that the deputy district judge had had the opportunity to see the applicant in person and make his own assessment of her before deciding to grant her bail. In contrast to other cases in which the Court had previously found that special criteria had to be met for an applicant’s personal attendance to be required under Article 5 §   4, the present case did not concern an applicant’s appeal against detention in remand, but a prosecution appeal against bail that had already been granted and without which the applicant would have been entitled to be at liberty. It was of central importance that the domestic law qualified a prosecution appeal against bail as a re-hearing of the application for bail, thereby entitling the judge hearing the appeal to remand the accused in custody or to grant bail subject to such conditions as he or she deemed appropriate. It followed that the applicant should have been afforded the same guarantees on the appeal as at first instance. There was no evidence of any compelling reasons which might have rendered the applicant’s presence undesirable or impracticable. On the contrary, her representatives had made arrangements for her to be present in the building. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, fairness had required that her request to be present at the appeal be granted. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 5 § 3: The Court rejected the applicant’s contention that, because his decision on bail was open to appeal, the deputy district judge did not “exercise judicial power”. It noted that, on the contrary, all that its case-law required under Article 5 §   3 was that either the judge or judicial officer conducting the initial review should have power to release if the detention was unlawful or not based on reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence. Furthermore, in the applicant’s case the question of bail had been reconsidered a short time later by a judicial officer who undisputedly did have the power to make a final decision. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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