CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s8242CF8E { width:39.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     550   12.10.1999   Eng. only   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PERKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM       In a judgment [1] notified in writing on 12 October 1999 in the case of Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 25277/94), the European Court of Human Rights held by 5 votes to 2 (in respect of Mr Perks) and unanimously (in respect of the remaining applicants) that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also held unanimously that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was not applicable.     However, the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) (right to a fair trial) concerning all eight applicants. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Perks £5,500 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicants a total of £28,000 for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal 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.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court     The eight applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 April 1994, 27   April 1994, 27 June 1994, 27 June 1994, 24 June 1994, 14   July   1995, 26   July 1995 and 24 August 1995 respectively. Having declared the applications admissible, the Commission adopted reports on 9 September 1998 in which it expressed the unanimous opinion that in each case there had been no violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention, but that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c). The United Kingdom Government brought the case before the Court on 20 November 1998.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the Panel of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that the applications would be examined by one of the Sections. They were assigned to the Third Section. Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Judges , Sir Rupert Jackson (British), ad hoc Judge ,   and also Sally Dollé , Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [2]     Complaints     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.     Decision of the Court     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.     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.     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.     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.     Judges Greve and Tulkens expressed dissenting opinions which are annexed to the judgment.     The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ) on the day of their delivery.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) or   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91     The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] The judgment becomes final subject to Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention:   Under Article 43 , within three months from the date of the 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.   A panel of five judges accepts the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance.   Under Article 44 , the Chamber judgment becomes final (a) when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.       [2] This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.