Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850307-1112984
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 13:38:23+00:00
Document Index: 111587894

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", "l'article 27"]

BROWN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BROWN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation du rôle (solution du litige)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 11129/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-03-07;11129.84 Analyses : (Art. 13) DROIT A UN RECOURS EFFECTIF, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : BROWNDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 11129/8 4 Ronald BROWN v/the UNITED KINGDO M Ronald BROWN c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 7 March 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 7 mars 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : Application of the principle of "equality of anns" to leave to appeal procedure . Refusal to lift an injunction over a bank account of the applicant to enable him to pay for representation on an application for leave to appeal : examination of whether such refusal is contrary to the requirentents of a fair trial. Article 6, paragraph 3 (c) of the Convention : Refusal of legal aid for application for leave to appeal following examination of whether the interests of justice required the grant of legal aid.
A rticle 6, paragraphe l, de la Convention : Application du principe de .l'Ã©galitÃ© des annesÂ» Ã la procÃ©dure de-ramen d'une demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel (leave to appeal). E.camen du point de savoir si le refus de dÃ©bloquer un compte bancaire du requÃ©rant afin de lui pennettre de rEmunErer un avocat pour demander l'autorisation d'interjeter appel est contraire Ã l'exigence d'un procÃ¨s Ã© quitable . A rticle 6, paragraphe 3, litt . c), de la Convention : Refus de l'assistance judiciaire pour derrwnder l'autorisation d'interjeter appel (leave to appeal) aprÃ¨s examen de la question de savoir si les intÃ©rÃªts de la justice exigeaient l'octroi de l'assistance judiciaire.
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 272)
The facts as they have been submitted by the applicant, a British citizen bor n in 1922 and presently detained in HM P rison Ga rt ree, may be summarised as fol lows : In September 1981 the applicant was arrested in connection with a robbery and remanded in custody . On 5 March 1982 an injunction was granted to the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police restricting the applicant from drawing any monies from his bank account . The presiding judge who granted the injunction was Mr . Justice Park . The applicant was tried on various charges in February 1983 and was convicted and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment . The trial judge was Mr . Justice McCowen . On 2 April 1984 the applicant applied to a judge in Chambers for the releas e of some of the funds subject to the injunction granted in March 1982 to enable him to pay for legal representation for his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence . Despite the applicant's objection, this application was heard initially by Mr . Justice McCowen . The application was however adjourned, and reconvened before a different judge, Mr . Justice Hutchinson, who refused Ihe application . On the following day . 3 April 1984 . the full Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal comprising Lord Justice Watkins, Mr . Justice Park and Mrs . Justice Butler-Sloss considered the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence . The application was refused . On 10 April 1984 the applicant sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the involvement of Mr . Justice McCowen in the hearing of his application to release funds, and Mr . Justice Park in hearing of his application before the Court of Appeal . This application was rejected on the ground that, under the relevant statute, no appeal lies to the House of Lords from the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal .
COMPLAINTS (Extract) The applicant contends that it was contrary to Article 6 para . 3(c) of the Convention that he was denied legal aid in respect of his application for leave to appeal and that the refusal to release funds subject to the injunction in order to enable him to fund legal representation for his application for leave to appeal was unfair .
THE LAW (Extract ) 1 . The applicant complains that the denial of legal aid in respect of his application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence failed to respect Article 6 para . 3 (c) of the Convention which provides : "3 . Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights : (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance . to be given it free when the interests of justice so require ; " However, the applicant has not contended that, in refusing his application for legal aid, due consideration was not given to the question whether the interests of justice required that the applicant should be granted it . The applicant sought legal aid in relation to his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence . Following the refusal of a single judge to award legal aid the applicant made a further application which was heard by the full Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal as part of his application for leave to appeal . The applicant had also requested that the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence be adjourned, to enable him to try to organise legal representation before the Court of Appeal . Lord Justice Watkins specifically stated in the Court's judgement that this request had been "very carefully considered and refused" . The Court of Appeal undertook a thorough review of the case in deciding upon the various grounds of the application before it . The applicant does not suggest that the Court failed to consider the matter properly in deciding that the interests of justice did not require that he should be granted legal aid for the purposes of his application for leave to appeal . It follows that this part of the application is unsubstantiated and manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant also complains that the rejection by thejudge in Chambers of his application to have the injunction over a bank account of his lifted to the extent necessary to enable him to fund legal representation for his application for leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal was unfair . The Commission notes that in respect of an application for leave to appeal it is not usual for a detained applicant to be presenl or to be legally represented . While it is true that the applicant's brother, a co-defendant, was represented before the Court of Appeal, it is significant that the prosecution was not represented . The Commission recalls its earlier decision on the admissibility of Application No . 7413/7 6 271
(Dec . 16 .5 .77, D .R . 9 p . 100) where it said that in respect of applications for leave to appeal : "The Commission in examining such proceedings has regard, however, to their faimess as a whole . In doing so, and in accordance with its constant case law, the Commission considers 'that the 'fair hearing' to be granted to an accused person within the meaning of Anicle 6 para . I requires respect for the principle of 'equality of atms' as between the prosecution and the defence' (see No . 5871/72 . Dec . 30 .9 .74, D .R . I p . 54) . " The applicant had been fully represented at his trial in the Crown Court, and the prosecution was not represented before the Court of Appeal on the application for leave to appeal . The Commission considers that, in these circumstances, the refusal to release monies from the bank account in question did not upset the "equality of arms" as between the prosecution and the defence in the present case and that the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a whole was not prejudiced thereby . It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT Les faits, tels que les a exposÃ©s le requÃ©rant, ressortissant britannique nÃ© en 1922 et actuellement dÃ©tenu Ã la prison d'Etat de Gartree, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit En septembre 1981, le requÃ©rant fut arr@tÃ© pour vol Ã main armÃ©e, et placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Le 5 mars 1982, le Commissaire principal de la police de West Midlands fit dÃ©livrer une ordonnance interdisant au requÃ©rant de retirer de l'argent de son compte en banque . Le prÃ©sident du tribunal qui fit droit Ã cette demande d'injonction Ã©tait le juge Park . En fÃ©vrier 1983, le requÃ©rant fut jugÃ© sur divers chefs d'accusation, reconnu coupable et condamnÃ© Ã 18 ans de prison . Le juge d'instance Ã©tait M . McCowen .
Le 2 avril 1984, le requÃ©rant demanda en rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© la mainlevÃ©e de certains des fonds visÃ©s par l'ordonnance de mars 1982, afin de lui permettre de payer un avocat pour le reprÃ©senter dans sa demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel contre sa condamnation et sa peine . MalgrÃ© l'objection du requÃ©rant, la demande fut d'abord entendue par le juge McCowen, puis ajournÃ©e et reprise devant un autre juge, M . Hulchinson, qui la rejeta . Le lendemain, 3 avril 1984, la Chambre criminelle de la Court of Appeal, composÃ©e des juges Watkins, Park et M~ Butler-Sloss, examina la demande en autorisation d'appel formÃ©e par le requÃ©rant contre sa condamnation et sa peine et la rejeta . Le 10 avril 1984, le requÃ©rant sollicita de la Chambre des Lords l'autorisation d'interjeter appel contre l'examen par lejuge McCowen de sa demande de mainlevÃ©e de l'injonction et par le juge Park de sa demande if la Court of Appeal . Cette requÃªte fut rejetÃ©e au motif que, selon la rÃ©glementation en vigueur, il n'est pas possible d'en appeler Ã la Chambre des Lords de la dÃ©cision de la Court of Appeal refusant l'autorisation d'interjeter l'appel .
GRIEFS (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'il Ã©tait contraire Ã l'article 6 par . 3 c) de la Convention de lui refuser l'assistance judiciaire pour demander l'autorisation d'interjeter appel . En outre, il Ã©tait injuste de lui refuser la permission de retirer de son compte bloquÃ© de quoi payer sa reprÃ©sentation lors de sa demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que le refus de l'aide judiciaire qu'il sollicitait pour prÃ©senter Ã la Court of Appeal sa demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel de la condamnation et de la peine n'a pas respectÃ© l'article 6 par. 3 c) de la Convention ainsi libellÃ© : Â«3 . Tout accusÃ© Ã droit notamment Ã : c) se dÃ©fendre lui-mÃªme ou avoir l'assistance d'un dÃ©fenseur de son choix et, s'il n'a pas les moyens de rÃ©munÃ©rer un dÃ©fenseur, pouvoir Ã¨tre assistÃ© gratuitement par un avocat d'office, lorsque les intÃ©rÃ¨ts de la justice l'exigent ; Cependant, le requÃ©rant n'a pas prÃ©tendu qu'en rejetant sa demande d'aidejudiciaire, le tribunal n'a pas convenablement examinÃ© la question de savoir si les intÃ©rÃªts de la justice exigeaient de l'admettre au bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'aide judiciaire . Le requÃ©rant avait sollicitÃ© l'aide judiciaire pour prÃ©senter sa demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel de la condamnation et de la peine . Suite au refus d'un juge unique de lui accorder l'aide judiciaire, il prÃ©senta une nouvelle demande que l a
Chambre criminelle de la Court of Appeal examina en plÃ©niÃ¨re dans le cadre de la demande en autorisation d'appel . Le requÃ©rant avait Ã©galement demandÃ© d'ajoumer l'examen de cette demiÃ¨re demande, pour lui permettre d'organiser une reprÃ©sentation juridique devant la Court of Appeal . Le juge Watkins dÃ©clara expressÃ©ment dans l'arrÃ¨t rendu par la Cour que cette demande - avait Ã©tÃ© trÃ¨s soigneusement examinÃ©e et rejetÃ©e â¢ . La Cour a procÃ©dÃ© Ã un examen approfondi de l'affaire pour statuer sur les diffÃ©rents moyens qui lui Ã©taiem prÃ©sentÃ©s . Le requÃ©rant n'a pas laissÃ© entendre que la Cour n'aurait pas examinÃ© convenablement la question lorsqu'elle a dÃ©cidÃ© que les intÃ©rÃ¨ts de la justice n'obligeaient pas Ã admettre le requÃ©rant au bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'aide judiciaire pour prÃ©senter sa demande en autorisation d'appel .
Il s'ensuit que, sur ce point, la requÃ©te n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tayÃ©e et est manifestemem mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaim Ã©galement du caractÃ¨re inÃ©quitable du rejet en rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© de sa demande de mainlevÃ©e de l'injonction concemant son compte en banque dans la mesure oÃ¹ il lui fallait rÃ©munÃ©rer un avocat pour sa demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel devant la Court of Appeal . La Commission relÃ¨ve qu'en ce qui concerne une demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel, il n'est pas habituel qu'un requÃ©rant dÃ©tenu soit prÃ©sent Ã l'audience ou s'y fasse reprÃ©senter par un avocat . S'il est exact que le frÃ¨re du requÃ©rant, co-dÃ©fendeur, ait Ã©tÃ© reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Court of Appeal, il importe de relever cependant que l'accusation ne l'a pas Ã©tÃ© . La Commission rappelle sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@te No 7413/76 (dÃ©c . 16 .5 .77, D .R . 9 p . 100) oÃ¹ elle a dÃ©clarÃ©, s''agissant des demandes en autorisation d'interjeter appel : - Dans l'examen d'une telle procÃ©dure, la Commission se prÃ©occupe du caractÃ¨re Ã©quitable qu'elle doit avoir dans son ensemble . Ce faisant - et conformÃ©ment Ã sa jurisprudence constame - elle estime que 'le procÃ¨s Ã©quitable, auquel a droit tout accusÃ© aux termes de l'article 6 par . 1, implique le respect du principe de 'l'Ã©galitÃ© des artnes' entre l'accusation et la dÃ©fense' (cf . DÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte No 5871/72, X . c/Royaume-Uni . D .R . I p . 54) .Or, le requÃ©ram a Ã©tÃ© pleinement reprÃ©sentÃ© lors de son procÃ¨s devant la Crown Court alors que l'accusation ne l'a pas Ã©tÃ© devant la Court of Appeal lors de l'examen de la demande en autorisation d'interjeter appel . La Commission estime que, dans ces conditions . le refus de dÃ©bloquer le compte en banque du requÃ©rant n'a pas nui en l'espÃ¨ce Ã - l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes - entre l'accusation et la dÃ©fense ni portÃ© prÃ©judice Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© de l'ensemble de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale engagÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ©te est . sur ce point Ã©galement, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
274Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 07/03/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page