CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 51 March 2003 Wardle v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 72219/01 Decision 27.3.2003 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Release pending trial Prolongation of pre-trial detention after expiry of statutory time-limit, on the basis of prosecution’s substitution of new charge: inadmissible In July 1998 an elderly man collapsed and died during a violent burglary in his home. According to the pathologist’s report, drawn up in October 1998, the victim had been suffering from heart disease and the combination of minor injuries and the fear engendered by the burglary had caused his death. The applicant was arrested and questioned in August 1998. After his release, the police conducted extensive covert surveillance and recorded incriminating remarks. They re-arrested the applicant in January 1999 and charged him with murder. During police interviews, he was shown the videos secretly recorded by the police. His lawyer stated that the image quality was poor. The applicant was remanded in custody on the murder charge on 8 January. The defence requested full disclosure from the prosecution on 14 January. The police submitted the file to the prosecution on 26 February. Further statements, requested by the defence, were submitted on 5 March. At the same time, a second pathologist’s report was drawn up that, in essence, came to the same conclusion as the first one. The prosecution finally served the full file on the defence between 9 and 11 March, indicating they were ready for committal of the applicant on a charge of manslaughter. The applicant and his lawyer were not able to view the video evidence until 18 March and considered that both the image and sound quality were inadequate. The defence therefore indicated on that date that it was not ready for a committal hearing on account of lack of time to consider the evidence. The applicant appeared before the Magistrates’ Court on 19 March, on which date the statutory time-limit of 70 days’ pre-trial detention in homicide cases expired. The prosecution formally preferred a new manslaughter charge and indicated that it was ready for committal. The court extended the original custody time-limit, accorded a new custody time-limit in light of the new charge and adjourned proceedings for three weeks to allow the defence to prepare. The applicant appealed to the Crown Court, arguing that the prosecution was manipulating the statutory custody time-limit and that the new charge should not entail either a new time-limit or the extension of the first one. On the former point, the court considered that the new charge entailed a new time-limit. However, it ruled that the first time-limit should not have been extended, since the prosecution had not acted with due expedition. The applicant was therefore entitled to apply for bail, which he did. Bail was refused, however, in the light of previous conduct. The applicant sought judicial review of the ruling on the new time-limit. His application was rejected by the High Court, which found that, whereas the time-limit could be extended only if the prosecution could justify its request, the substitution of the charge automatically triggered a new time-limit, unless the defence could show bad faith on the part of prosecution. The applicant was convicted of manslaughter in September 1999. The House of Lords subsequently confirmed the lower courts’ finding that separate, distinct offences entailed separate time-limits. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 (c) and (3): While the applicant would have been entitled to release on bail on 19 March 1999 if the original time-limit had expired (as the County Court found it had) and no other time-limit had been applied, the new time-limit did not deprive his pre-trial detention of adequate judicial safeguards. Not only was he entitled to make bail applications to the Magistrates’ Court, which he did not do, but, while the second time-limit may have effectively deprived him of a right to release on 19 March 1999, it did not amount to an order that he was to be detained until the expiry of that second period. It was open to him to apply for bail, which he did during his appeal to the Crown Court, and although his application was refused, he did not challenge the refusal, which was open to judicial review. There was, accordingly, sufficient judicial control over the applicant’s pre-trial detention, and this was not excluded by the substitution of the manslaughter charge: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 3: The applicant further contended that on account of the late substitution of the manslaughter charge, his pre-trial detention was too long. However, the reasons given for refusing bail were relevant and sufficient and the applicant did not challenge the merits of the decision. The period of pre-trial detention lasted from 5 January to 24 September 1999. The case was complex and the evidence voluminous and although the Crown Court found that the prosecution had not acted with “due expedition”, this assessment was without reference to Article 5 of the Convention and was in the context of the imminent committal hearing. In the eight weeks following the applicant’s re-arrest, the police had to consider the mass of evidence carefully before submitting it to the prosecution. Moreover, although the prosecution made the decision to await the completion of the file before communicating it to the defence, this did not fall foul of the requirement of special diligence, particularly since the question of the charge remained open until the file was complete. It was reasonable for the prosecution to seek committal only on the lesser charge that it considered the evidence supported. Although the applicant argued that the prosecution should have sought his committal on 19 March 1999 on the manslaughter charge, the defence needed more time to prepare. The proceedings were adjourned for three weeks only and the applicant made no complaint about any delay thereafter. Having regard to all of the circumstances, the domestic authorities did not fail to act with the necessary dispatch: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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