CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 octobre 2003

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 57 October 2003 Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 39665/98 and 40086/98 Judgment 9.10.2003 [GC] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Applicability of Article 6 to prison disciplinary proceedings: Article 6 applicable Facts : While serving lengthy prison sentences, the applicants were charged with offences under the Prison Rules. The first applicant was charged with threatening to kill a probation officer; the second applicant was charged with assaulting a prison officer. The applicants’ requests to be allowed legal representation for their respective adjudication hearings were refused by the Governor. They were both found guilty and were awarded forty additional days’ custody and seven additional days’ custody respectively. They were subsequently refused leave to apply for judicial review. Law : Article 6 § 3 (c) – (a) applicability of Article 6:   It was appropriate to apply the criteria set out in the Engel judgment, while making due allowance for the prison context. The Government’s argument that removing the power of prison governors to award additional days would undermine prison discipline was not compelling: it had not been explained why the range of other available sanctions – which had since been extended – would not have had a comparable impact in maintaining the efficiency of the prison disciplinary system. It had not been convincingly shown that the disciplinary needs in Scotland, where awards of additional days had been suspended, were significantly different from those in England and Wales, and the practical obstacles (administrative and financial burdens and delays in adjudication) created by the new system introduced as a result of the Chamber’s judgment were not on their own such as to render Article 6 inapplicable. The offences at issue were classified as disciplinary in domestic law. However, the nature of the offences was of greater importance in determining whether Article 6 was applicable. In that respect, the offences were directed towards a group with a special status – prisoners – and not at all citizens. However, this did not render the nature of the offences prima facie disciplinary; it was only one of the relevant indicators. The disciplinary charges also corresponded to offences under the criminal law and while the charge against the second applicant involved a relatively minor incident which might not have led to prosecution outwith the prison context, the minor nature of the offence could not of itself remove it from the ambit of Article 6. The theoretical possibility of concurrent criminal and disciplinary liability was at the very least a relevant point which tended to the classification of the nature of both offences as “mixed” offences. Furthermore, the awards of additional days were imposed after a finding of culpability, to punish the applicants for offences and to prevent further offending by them and others, and the the distinction made by the Government between punitive and deterrent aims was unconvincing, since these are not mutually exclusive and indeed are characteristic features of criminal penalties. These factors gave the offences a certain colouring which did not entirely coincide with that of a purely disciplinary matter and it was therefore necessary to turn to the third criterion, namely the nature and severity of the potential penalty. In domestic law, a right to release arose only on expiry of any additional days awarded, so that the legal basis for detention continued to be the original conviction and sentence. Nevertheless, the reality was that prisoners were detained beyond the date on which they would otherwise have been released, as a consequence of proceedings legally unconnected to the original conviction and sentence. Awards of additional days’ detention thus constituted fresh deprivations of liberty imposed for punitive reasons and the question of procedural protection was properly considered under Article 6 rather than under Article 5. In view of the deprivations of liberty which were liable to be and actually were imposed in the present case, there was a presumption that the charges at issue were criminal and that presumption could be rebutted only exceptionally and if the deprivation of liberty was not “appreciably detrimental”. The maximum possible was 42 days’ additional detention and in the present case the awards of forty and seven days respectively could not be regarded as sufficiently unimportant or inconsequential to displace the presumed criminal nature of the charges. The charges were therefore “criminal” and Article 6 applied (11 votes to 6). (b) The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber’s reasoning that the refusal of the Governor to allow the applicants to be legally represented constituted a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). It was unnecessary to consider the alternative complaint that the interests of justice required the granting of free legal aid for the proceedings. Conclusion : violation (11 votes to 6). Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It 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