CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juin 2004

.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 65 June 2004 S.C. v. the United Kingdom - 60958/00 Judgment 15.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Fitness of an eleven year old boy to plead and stand trial: violation Facts : When he was eleven years old the applicant was charged with attempted robbery and committed for trial before the Crown Court. Two psychiatric reports drawn up before the trial stated that the applicant had learning difficulties and impaired reasoning skills, which could have adversely affected his understanding of the consequences of his wrong actions. The medical reports recommended long term foster care in preference to a custodial sentence. At a pre-trial hearing, the applicant’s counsel argued that the trial should be stayed as an abuse of process, because the applicant would not be able to understand fully and participate in the trial, given his low attention span and cognitive abilities, which were more consistent with a child of 8 rather than 11. The submission was rejected and the applicant was placed on trial in the Crown Court. Measures were taken to conduct the trial in as informal a manner as possible (the applicant was not required to sit in the dock, the court took frequent breaks and the wearing of wigs was dispensed with). He was convicted and sentenced to two and a half years’ detention. On appeal, the applicant advanced new evidence, including a statement from a social worker who had been with him throughout the trial, which underlined the applicant’s lack of comprehension of the situation he had been faced with. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Law : Article 6 § 1 (fair trial) – The trial on criminal charges of an eleven year old child does not in itself give rise to a breach of this provision, as long as he or she is able to participate effectively in the trial. “Effective participation” requires that the accused has a broad understanding of the nature of the trial process and of what is at stake for him. Although steps were taken to conduct the trial in as informal a manner as possible and the court process seems to have been explained to the applicant in a manner commensurate with his learning difficulties by the social worker who attended the trial with him, the statements of the social worker showed that the applicant had not comprehended the situation he was in, or, even more strikingly, did not seem to have grasped the fact that he risked a custodial sentence, and had thus appeared confused when taken down to the holding cells instead of going back to his foster father. In the light of this evidence, the Court could not conclude that the applicant had been capable of participating effectively in his trial. The child’s best interest as well as that of the community would have required the applicant to be tried in a specialist tribunal, which would have been able to give full consideration and make proper allowance for his handicaps.   Despite the fact that it had not been contended on behalf of the applicant during the domestic proceedings that he was unfit to plead, the Court was not convinced in the circumstances of the case that the applicant had been capable of participating effectively in his trial to the extent required by Article 6 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (5 votes to 2). Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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