CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 2001

.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 31 June 2001 S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom - 39360/98 Judgment 19.6.2001 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-3 Judge or other officer exercising judicial power Automatic refusal of bail: violation Facts : In 1978, the applicant was convicted of manslaughter. After serving his sentence, he was arrested in 1996 and charged with, inter alia , raping two of his daughters. The Magistrates’ Court rejected his application for bail on the ground that there was a risk that he might commit further offences or interfere with witnesses. The court was unaware that it did not in any event have power to grant bail, since section   25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provided that bail could not be granted to a person charged with or convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape if he or she had previously been convicted of any of these offences. However, the court was made aware of the applicability of the provision when a further bail application was made and the scheduled hearing for examining the bail application did not take place. The applicant was later acquitted. Law : Article 5 § 3 and § 5, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 – Although, as in the Caballero case, the Government conceded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and § 5, the Court considered that it should examine the issues raised. It saw no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the European Commission of Human Rights in its report in the Cabellero case, to the effect that the exclusion in advance by the legislature of any possibility of consideration by a judge of release on bail violated Article 5 § 3 and the absence of a remedy violated Article 5 § 5. It found no material difference between the relevant facts of that case and the present one and considered that section 25 of the 1994 Act, which applied in the applicant’s case, by its terms removed the judicial control of his pre-trial detention which was required by Article 5 § 3.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and § 5 of the Convention. On the other hand, there had been no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 and § 5 of the Convention. Article 41 – The Court considered that it could not speculate on whether or not the applicant would have been released on bail in the absence of section 25 of the 1994 Act. Consequently, no causal link between the violation of Article 5 and the alleged pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage had been established. As to any non-pecuniary damage sustained by him by reason of his knowledge of his pre-trial detention in violation of Article 5 § 3, the Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished the situation in the Caballero case (£1,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damages), in which the Government had not disputed affidavit evidence that the applicant would have had a good chance of being released on bail prior to his trial were it not for section 25 of the 1994 Act, whereas in the present case the Magistrates’ Court had considered and rejected a substantive bail application. 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