CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sE1FBB432 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   551 3.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT McKAY v. UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of McKay v. United Kingdom (application no. 543/03).   The Court held, by 16 votes to one, that there had been: no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mark McKay, is a British national who was born in 1983 and lives in Bangor, (Northern Ireland).   On 6 January 2001, at 10 p.m., he was arrested on suspicion of having carried out a robbery of a petrol station in Bangor, County Down. On 7 January 2001, he admitted being responsible for the robbery and was charged.   On 8 January 2001 the applicant made his first appearance in the magistrates’ court, where he instructed his solicitors to make an application for his release on bail. The police officer gave evidence to the court stating that the robbery was not connected with terrorism and that, subject to the proper conditions, he would have no objection to bail.   The sitting resident magistrate refused the application, indicating that the offence was a scheduled offence and that he therefore did not have the power to order release (under section 67(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 3(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996).   On 8 January 2001, the applicant applied to the High Court for bail. On 9   January 2001, the High Court heard and granted his application.   On 12 April 2001, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to an offence of robbery and was sentenced to two years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution, followed by a year of probation.   The applicant applied unsuccessfully for judicial review seeking a declaration that the legislation in question was incompatible with Article 5 § 3 and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2003 and declared admissible on 30 November 2004. On 17 January 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 30 [2] of the Convention. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 14 June 2006.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Nina Vajić (Croatian) Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Acting Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   The applicant complained that people charged with scheduled offences cannot apply for bail before a magistrates' court; they are required to make an application to the High Court and it may be up to four days later before their application is heard. He maintained that this was in breach of Article 5 of the Convention as it separates the power to grant bail from the court before which an accused person is brought and leaves the accused person to seek bail elsewhere.         Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 3   The Court observed that it was not in dispute that the magistrate dealing with Mr McKay’s case had the competence to examine the lawfulness of his arrest and detention and whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting him of having committed the crime of which he was accused. The magistrate also had the power to order the applicant’s release if those requirements were not complied with. That provided satisfactory guarantees against abuse of power by the authorities and ensured compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 concerning the early stages following an arrest when an individual is taken into the power of the authorities, in that there was prompt and automatic judicial control before a duly empowered judicial officer.   The question of release pending trial was a distinct and separate matter which logically only became relevant after the establishment of the existence of a basis for the applicant’s detention both under domestic law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. It was dealt with some 24 hours later, on 9 January 2001, by the High Court which ordered his release. No element of possible abuse or arbitrariness arose from the fact that his release was ordered by another tribunal or judge or from the fact that the examination was dependent on his application to the High Court. The applicant’s lawyer lodged such an application without any hindrance or difficulty; it was not apparent, nor did it fall to be decided in the applicant’s case, that the system in operation would prevent the weak or vulnerable from making use of that possibility.   While it was true that the police had no objection to bail and that, if the magistrate had had the power to release on bail, the applicant would have been released one day earlier, the Court nonetheless considered that the procedure in the applicant’s case was conducted with due expedition, leading to his release some three days after his arrest. There had, accordingly, been no violation of Article 5 § 3.     Judge Borrego Borrego expressed a separate opinion, Judge Jebens expressed a dissenting opinion, and Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Botoucharova, Myjer and Ziemele expressed a joint separate opinion, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.