CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 13 December 1999 V. v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 24888/94 Judgment 16.12.1999 [GC] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Public trial in an adult court of juvenile charged with murder: violation Independent tribunal Imposition of a sentence of detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure with a tariff of fifteen years fixed by a member of the executive: violation Facts – The applicant and another boy, both aged ten, were charged with the murder of a two-year-old boy whom they had abducted and battered to death. They were tried in public in an adult court over a three-week period. The trial was conducted with the formality of an adult trial, although certain modifications were made to the procedure in view of the defendants’ age (then eleven): in particular, they were seated next to social workers in a specially raised dock, with their parents and lawyers nearby, and the length of the hearings was shortened. The judge also made it clear that he would adjourn whenever the defendants showed signs of tiredness or stress and he did so on one occasion. Massive publicity surrounded the trial but the application lodged by applicant’s counsel for a stay of the proceedings on the ground of the nature and extent of media coverage was unsuccessful. The judge ordered, however, that there should be no publication of the names or other identifying details of the applicant and his co-accused. A psychiatrist gave evidence at the trial stating that the applicant was able to discern between right and wrong at the time of the murder and, in his summing-up to the jury, the trial judge drew the jurors’ attention to the fact that the prosecution was required to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were both convicted of murder and abduction, following which the judge authorised publication of their names. The applicant was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure. The trial judge recommended a tariff period (for the purposes of retribution and deterrence) of eight years, while the Lord Chief Justice recommended ten years. However, the Secretary of State, taking into account public concern, set a tariff of fifteen years. The applicant commenced judicial review proceedings to challenge the tariff as disproportionately long and fixed without due regard to the needs of rehabilitation. A medical report prepared for the purposes of the proceedings indicated that the applicant did not have the capacity to understand the trial and that, given his immaturity, it was doubtful that he had sufficiently understood the situation to give his lawyer proper instructions. The Divisional Court quashed the tariff set by the Secretary of State, on the ground that he had misdirected himself in giving weight to public protests. The Secretary of State’s appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were dismissed. No new tariff has been fixed. Law Article 6 § 1 ( fair hearing ): This provision guaranteed the right of an accused to participate effectively in his criminal trial. Since there was no common standard as to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, it could not be said that the trial of a child, even as young as eleven, as such violated the right to a fair trial. It was essential, however, that a child charged with an offence should be dealt with in a manner which took full account of his age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps should be taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings. When a child was charged with a serious offence attracting high levels of media and public interest, it would be necessary to reduce feelings of intimidation and inhibition as far as possible. The general interest in the open administration of justice could be satisfied by a modified procedure providing for selected attendance rights and judicious reporting. Although special measures were taken to promote the applicant’s understanding of the proceedings, the formality and ritual of the court must at times have seemed incomprehensible and intimidating for the applicant. There was considerable psychiatric evidence casting doubt on the applicant’s ability to participate in the proceedings and in such circumstances the fact that he was represented by experienced lawyers was not sufficient for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. The applicant was thus unable to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings. Conclusion : violation (sixteen votes to one). Article 6 § 1 ( independent tribunal ): In criminal matters, this provision covered the whole of the proceedings, including the determination of sentence. Since the tariff represented the maximum period of detention which a juvenile sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure could be required to serve if he was not perceived to be dangerous, the fixing of the tariff amounted to a sentencing exercise and Article 6 was applicable. “Independent” within the meaning of Article 6 meant independence of the executive as well as of the parties. However, the applicant’s tariff had been fixed by the Home Secretary, who could not be considered as being independent of the executive. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: The Court awarded legal costs of GBP 32,000.   © 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