CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   880 24.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Shannon v. Latvia (application no. 32214/03)   SEX OFFENDER’S DETENTION ON REMAND JUSTIFIED ALBEIT TAINTED BY IRREGULARITIES   No violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights No violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) concerning the reasoning used to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention Violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the speediness of review of two of the decisions on the applicant’s pre-trial detention   (The judgment is available only in English.)     Principal facts   The applicant, Lindsey Hughes Shannon, is a citizen of the United States of America who was born in 1955 and is currently thought to be living in the United States of America.   Temporarily staying in Olaine (Latvia), Mr Shannon was arrested and taken into custody on 1 October 2002 on suspicion of having sexually assaulted juveniles during a previous trip to Latvia. The suspicion against him was based on statements by four victims and testimony from an unnamed eyewitness. He was officially charged with sexual assault on 31 October 2002.   His subsequent detention on remand was prolonged by two levels of jurisdiction on five occasions (4 October 2002, 29 November 2002, 30 January, 31 March and 30 May 2003). All of his appeals against the detention orders were refused on the basis of the reasonableness of the suspicion against him, the severity of the crime with which he was charged, the fact that he had no legal and/or fixed residence in Latvia, the danger of him absconding and that he could impede the investigation.   In June 2003, the prosecutor also accused the applicant of having molested young boys during other trips to Latvia in July, August and September 2001. The charges were extended from sexual assault to aggravated, forcible sexual assault, forcible sodomy and inducing juveniles to take part in prostitution and/or production of pornography.   Mr Shannon was convicted as charged in January 2004 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; he was subsequently acquitted of the child pornography charges and his sentence reduced to four years’ imprisonment.   Released on parole on 10 July 2006 after having served three quarters of his sentence, Mr   Shannon was expelled from Latvia three days later.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Shannon complained that his detention on remand during the proceedings against him had been unlawful and unjustified, in breach of Article   5   §§   1   (c). He also complained under Article 5 § 4 about the procedure by which he had sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He notably complained that the court orders extending his detention had been too abstract and concise, the reasons behind them simply repeating grounds for detention provided for by law without explaining how they applied in his particular case; and, that his appeals against those court orders had not been examined in good time. Mr Shannon complained further under Article 8 on two counts: one, that in extending his detention on remand, the Latvian courts had neglected his state of health, the fact that he had been placed under psychiatric supervision in the United States and that he had a disabled brother in his care; and two, that the Latvian authorities had done nothing to secure his property in Florida.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1 (c)   The Court considered that, even if the applicant had been able to prove that he had had no intention of fleeing Latvia upon release from detention, the reasonable suspicion of him having committed a crime, which with time had even been supported by new evidence, had been a sufficient ground to detain him until his trial and subsequent conviction. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).   Article 5 § 4   Reasoning behind extensions of the applicant’s detention   Even though the reasoning used to apply and extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been fairly abstract and concise in the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case, notably the fact that he had no other link to the territory of Latvia, the illegality of his residence status could have legitimately been taken into account by the national courts in deciding on his detention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4 in that respect.   Speediness of review of the applicant’s detention on remand   Concerning the decisions of 4 October 2002, 30 January, and 30 May 2003, which had been reviewed by the courts between fourteen days - and one month and two days - later, following the applicant’s appeals, the Court found that the requirement of speediness in examining those appeals had been observed, and there had therefore been no violation of Article 5 § 4.   As regards the decision of 29 November 2002, the Court noted that the delay of 89 days in deciding on the applicant’s appeal against his detention had been chiefly caused by the Centre District Court’s erroneous decision to return the applicant’s appeal to him for translation and held, unanimously , that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Finally, in respect of the decision of 31 March 2003, the Court held unanimously that the delay of one month and eight days had not been explained by the authorities and, therefore, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 8   The Court found these complaints inadmissible either as it had examined the question already, or as all remedies provided by Latvian law had not been exhausted by the applicant.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.