CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD66075BF { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic } 268 30.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Allen v. United Kingdom (application no. 18837/06)   DRUG DEALING SUSPECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ATTEND HEARING OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISION GRANTING HER BAIL   Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Susan Anne Allen, is a British national who was born in 1970 and lives in Liverpool. In October 2005 she was charged with two offences of conspiracy to supply hard drugs. The following day, she was granted bail by the deputy district judge. As the prosecution gave notice that it wished to appeal against bail, the applicant remained in detention. The appeal hearing was to take place four days later and the applicant’s counsel arranged for her to be present at the court building. He twice requested that the applicant be allowed to be present while the appeal was heard. The judge declined the request, holding in particular that allowing her to be present would set a precedent for any defendant in custody wishing to attend an appeal against bail.   The judge allowed the prosecution’s appeal and refused bail, on the grounds that there was a risk that the applicant would abscond or obstruct the course of justice by providing her co-accused with information about the prosecution case. The applicant made two requests for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision not to allow her to attend the hearing, which were refused in November and December 2005 respectively, on the grounds that the relevant provision of the domestic Criminal Procedure Rules did not entitle her to be present at the hearing of the appeal.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that not permitting her to attend the hearing of the prosecution’s appeal against bail breached her rights under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). She also complained that the deputy district judge did not meet the requirements of Article   5   § 3 to be authorised “to exercise judicial power”, as he was not able to give a binding ruling on bail.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Poland), President, Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom) Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Davíd Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that the applicant’s complaint about not having been able to attend the appeal hearing against the bail decision should be examined under Article 5 § 4 alone.   The Court observed that the applicant had initially been granted bail by the deputy district judge, who had been able to make an assessment of her in person, and that she had expected to be immediately released. In contrast to other cases in which the Court had previously found that special criteria had to be met for an applicant’s personal attendance to be required under Article 5 § 4, the present case did not concern an applicant’s appeal against detention in remand, but a prosecution appeal against bail that had already been granted and without which the applicant would have been entitled to be at liberty.   The Court found that since the relevant domestic law qualified a prosecution appeal against bail as a re-hearing of the application for bail, the applicant should have been afforded the same guarantees as at a first instance hearing. Since the applicant had already been in the court building on the day of the hearing, allowing her to attend would have caused no practical inconvenience. It therefore concluded, by 6 votes to 1, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   With regard to the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3, the Court recalled that in another case [2] it had found no persuasive authority for concluding that the first obligatory appearance before a judge must encompass the power to grant release on bail. The Court therefore rejected the applicant’s contention that the deputy district judge did not “exercise judicial power,” as his decision on bail was open to appeal. It therefore unanimously found that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. 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 Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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. [2] McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC] (No. 543/03, 3 October 2006)