CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .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 11 October 1999 Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom - 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94 et al. Judgment 12.10.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-c Free legal assistance Unavailability of legal aid in proceedings relating to non-payment of community charge: violation Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention for non-payment of community charge: no violation (Extract from press release) Facts : The applicants, Kevin Perks, Andrea Rowe (Kennedy), Gordon Mudryj, Robert Massey, Alan Beattie, Leveson Knight, Arthur Tilley and John Crane, are British nationals living in Wolverhampton, Manchester, Newcastle, Bristol, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, Bolton and Preston respectively. In the early 1990’s, all eight applicants were imprisoned for failure to pay community charge (poll tax) following separate proceedings in various Magistrates’ Courts. Legal aid was not available and they were not legally represented. At the time, they were all dependent on State benefits, with the exception of Mr Crane, who was living on a very low income. The applicants were released on bail after applying for judicial review before the High Court. Following judicial review proceedings each applicant obtained an order quashing the magistrates’ imprisonment order in his or her case. The High Court did not overturn the findings of the Magistrates’ Courts according to which each applicant’s failure to pay was due to his or her wilful refusal or culpable neglect. However, the High Court found, in the case of Mr Perks, that the Magistrates’ Court should have inquired into the change of the applicant’s circumstances since a previous hearing, and, in the cases of Mrs Rowe, Mr Mudryj, Mr   Massey, Mr Knight, Mr Tilley and Mr Crane, that the magistrates should have considered alternatives to imprisonment in order to secure payment. The applicants complained that their imprisonment had been unlawful and contrary to Article   5 § 1 of the Convention, that in violation of Article 5 § 5 they could not obtain compensation for their allegedly unlawful imprisonment, and that Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c)   had been infringed in that legal aid had not been available to them in the committal proceedings before the Magistrates’ Courts. Law : Article 5 § 1: The applicants (except Mr Beattie who did not pursue his complaints under Article   5) complained that their detention had been contrary to Article 5 § 1. The Court held that, as in its Benham v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 June 1996, the main issue to be determined was whether the disputed detention was "lawful", including whether it complied with "a procedure prescribed by law". The Convention here essentially referred back to national law and stated the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it required in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness. It was in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entailed a breach of the Convention, it followed that the Court could and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law had been complied with. It was agreed by those appearing before the Court that the principles of English law which should be taken into account in this case distinguished between errors made by a magistrates' court which were of such a degree of gravity as to deprive the magistrates of jurisdiction, and other, less serious, mistakes. Orders made by a magistrates' court within its jurisdiction were valid and effective unless or until they were overturned by a superior court, so that any intervening period of detention would be lawful; whereas orders made in excess of jurisdiction were null and void from the outset, so that any interim detention would be unlawful. The Court found that it could not be said with any degree of certainty that the judgments of the national courts quashing the magistrates imprisonment orders were to the effect that the magistrates’ errors had been so grave as to deprive them of jurisdiction within the meaning of English law. It followed that the Court did not find it established that the detention orders were invalid, and thus that the applicants’ detention was unlawful under national law. The mere fact that the orders were set aside on appeal did not in itself affect the lawfulness of the detention. The Court further did not find it established that a question arose as to the applicability of paragraph 1(b) of Article 5 or that the imprisonment orders were arbitrary. Conclusion : no violation (5 votes to 2 with regard to Mr Perks, otherwise unanimously). Article 5 § 5: Article 5 § 5 guarantees an enforceable right to compensation only to those who have been the victims of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article   5. In view of its finding that there was no violation of Article 5 § 1 in this case, the Court concluded that Article 5 § 5 was not applicable. Conclusion : inapplicable (unanimous). Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c): The Court had to decide whether the interests of justice required that the applicants be provided with free legal representation at the hearings before the magistrates. It considered that this case, insofar as the issues under Article 6 § 1 and § 3(c) of the Convention were concerned, was practically identical to the Benham judgment. The applicants lacked sufficient means to pay for legal representation and, having regard to the severity of the penalty risked by them and the complexity of the law, the interests of justice demanded that, in order to receive a fair hearing, they ought to have benefited from free legal representation. Since this was not the case in any of the applications, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c) in each case. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: In respect of Mr Perks the Court noted the Government’s position to the effect that in all likelihood he would not have been imprisoned had he been legally represented. According to the High Court’s finding in Mr Perks’ case, it was unlikely that the magistrates would have committed him to prison if they had known more about his health problems and personal circumstances. The Government conceded that a reasonably competent solicitor would have drawn the magistrates attention to those circumstances. Seeing no reason to disregard the Government’s position, the Court awarded Mr Perks £5,500 for non-pecuniary damage. As regards the remaining seven applicants the Court found that there was no basis to speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings before the Magistrates’ Courts and that their cases did not disclose a feature distinguishing them from the case of Benham (cited above). In respect of these seven applicants, therefore, the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and   § 3(c) of the Convention was sufficient just satisfaction. The applicants sought reimbursement of legal costs and expenses totalling £29,424.54, which the Government considered to be excessive. The Court considered that only a minimal reduction of the applicants’ claims, on account of the partial rejection of their complaints, should be applied, given that it had been the Government who referred the applications to the Court.   © 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