ITEMID: 001-71681
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: IRL
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2005
DOCNAME: CASE OF BARRY v. IRELAND
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Cork. He is a medical doctor. In May 1995 a formal complaint was made to the police by a former female patient that she had been indecently assaulted by the applicant and that he had made video recordings. On 4 June 1995 a search warrant was obtained. On 6 June 1995 his home, clinic and consulting rooms were searched. Videos were found reflecting matters similar to those about which the woman had complained. Pills obtained by a prescription made out to, and using the medical card of, another patient were found although that patient knew nothing of the pills. A replica pistol and blank ammunition were found. The applicant was questioned. He admitted that he had obtained pills in that manner for several years.
5. In July 1995 the Medical Council (“the Council”) was informed of a number of complaints against him by two former female patients and, in August 1995, the police confirmed to the Council that they were investigating allegations of indecent assault by the applicant. In October 1995 the Council received written complaints from those two patients alleging sexual assault and blackmail. On 19 October 1995 the Fitness to Practice Committee (“the Committee”) of the Council decided that there was a prima facie case for the holding of an enquiry.
6. On 27 October 1995 the High Court made an order (unpublished) restraining him from practising pending the outcome of the inquiry. On 6 November 1995 the High Court ordered the removal of the applicant’s name from the register of practitioner’s and restrained him from practising pending the inquiry and all consequent proceedings. The High Court also agreed that the Council could make public the “sequence of events” including the orders of 27 October and 6 November 1995. The Council issued a press release on the same day which included the applicant’s name, the terms of those two High Court orders and details of how an individual could complain to the Council about a medical practitioner. Further complaints (600) were then received from other former female patients of the applicant, of which 145 made formal statements to the police.
7. The applicant left Ireland for a number of months to avoid the publicity but kept in contact with the police through his solicitor. On 2 March 1996 he attended with his solicitor, and by prearranged appointment, at a police station to enquire as to whether there were criminal charges pending against him. He claims that he was informed that no charges were pending. However, on 6 March 1996 when he voluntarily attended the same police station with his solicitor, his solicitor insisted on attending the interview, the police refused and, given the dispute, arrested the applicant (under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 – for the proper investigation of a crime - on suspicion of sexual assault of a former patient) during which period the applicant saw his solicitor. The period of lawful detention expired that evening: that same evening he appeared voluntarily before a High Court judge in his habeas corpus application. That application was later determined against him.
8. On 9 April 1996 the Chief State Solicitor advised the applicant that certain summonses had issued against him. The applicant was served at his solicitor’s office. The charges concerned the pills, replica pistol and ammunition found. On 8 July 1996 these charges were, pursuant to his application, struck out for lack of evidence.
9. On unspecified dates, certain former patients, also complainants in the criminal proceedings, initiated civil actions against the applicant alleging sexual assault. These proceedings are defended by the applicant.
10. On 18 July 1996 the applicant informed the Committee that the criminal proceedings had been favourably disposed of and that the pending civil actions against him (by patients who had not complained to the Council) would be vigorously defended: he asked for the resumption of the disciplinary inquiry. A hearing was held on 11 November 1996 and the Committee rejected his request to hold the inquiry in public. The applicant’s request for leave to apply for judicial review of that decision was rejected by the High Court but was granted by the Supreme Court (December 1996). The High Court (February 1997) and then the Supreme Court (December 1997) rejected the substantive judicial review application and appeal, respectively. When it became subsequently clear that sexual assault charges would be pursued against him, the Council proceedings were stayed.
11. In April 1997 the applicant was served with a routine summons under the Police Property Act 1897 (in order to allow them to dispose of the blank ammunition and the replica pistol). That summons lapsed as it was returnable for a bank holiday.
12. On 30 October 1997 the applicant was arrested on foot of a warrant (issued on 29 October 1997) in respect of an alleged sexual assault of a former patient on a date between 1 October 1992 and 30 November 1992. A list of all charges concerning 43 complainants was read to him later in the police station: he was thereby formally charged with 237 offences of a sexual nature. He was brought before the District Court later that morning to considerable media attention. Bail was opposed but granted on condition that he report to a police station every Monday morning. His passport was impounded.
13. On 14 November 1997 he unsuccessfully applied for a copy of the statement grounding the application for his arrest warrant. On 17 November 1997 he was given leave to apply for judicial review for an order prohibiting his prosecution on three grounds, including “gross and inexcusable delay”. A stay on prosecution was granted pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings.
14. In February and March 1998 the respondents submitted a statement of opposition and three affidavits. On 9 March 1998 an order for discovery was made against the respondents. In April, May, June and July 1998 the proceedings were adjourned on the application of the respondents. In early July 1998 the respondents filed their first affidavit of discovery and in late July the applicant requested further discovery. The proceedings were adjourned six times between July and November 1998 at the respondents’ request. On 7 December 1998 the respondents requested the hearing of the substantive matter; on 8 December 1998 they filed a further affidavit of discovery; on 9 December 1998 the applicant issued a motion requesting further and better discovery; and on 10 December 1998 the respondents requested that a date be fixed for the substantive hearing.
15. On 28 January 1999 the High Court ordered the applicant to file an affidavit listing those documents over which he disputed the respondents’ assertion of privilege. The applicant filed an affidavit on 9 February 1999 but it was later found not to have complied with the order of 28 January 1999. In response, the respondents filed affidavits on 3 June 1999. On that date the High Court heard the applicant’s motion for further discovery, ordered the respondents to make further discovery by 25 June 1999 and the matter was adjourned to 2 July 1999. On 29 June 1999 the applicant filed an affidavit complaining, inter alia, about delay in the case. On 30 June 1999, and further to the respondents’ submission that another affidavit and discovery would be soon ready, the matter was adjourned to 27 July 1999.
16. On 25 July 1999 the applicant was informed that a further adjournment would be applied for by the respondents. On 26 July 1999 the adjournment was accorded by the High Court (until 11 October 1999). The applicant filed an affidavit on that date again complaining about delay. The respondents filed further affidavits in September and October 1999 as did the applicant on 7 October 1999. On 11 October 1999 a further adjournment was accorded, with the applicant’s consent on the basis that the respondents furnish him with all non-contested documents by 29 October 1999. On 4 November 1999 the High Court ordered him to clarify within 3 weeks the documents in respect of which he contested the privilege claimed by the respondents. On 2 December 1999 the applicant filed a further affidavit.
17. On 3 December 1999 the hearing of the application for further and better discovery resumed. At this hearing the applicant indicated that he disputed privilege in relation to the complainants’ statements and the medical reports. The court ordered the respondents to make the complainants’ statements available to the applicant (with addresses blocked out). It made no order as regards the respondents’ medical reports and indicated that it would provide the first available date for the hearing of the substantive judicial review matter.
18. In December 1999 the substantive judicial review hearing was fixed for 22 February 2000. However, on 18 February 2000, the respondents filed another 10 affidavits. As a result, the substantive hearing had to be adjourned. Both parties were in agreement that the case should not be re-listed until the Supreme Court had given judgment in a case which was relevant to one (not delay) of the grounds of review (“the related case”).
19. In the meantime, the procedural disputes continued. The applicant disputed the claimed privilege during a hearing from 22 to 26 February 2000. During a hearing on 14, 15 and 16 March 2000 the applicant sought further inspection of the respondents’ documents. On 2 April 2001 the High Court refused this application. It noted that, while the respondents had been “grossly in delay” in filing the affidavits in February 2000, the information contained therein had not added anything material to the case. It also noted that the applicant had not complied with the High Court’s order of 28 January 1999 to specify which of the documents, in which the respondents were claiming privilege, were being disputed.
20. The Supreme Court gave judgment in the related case in May 2001. The applicant’s substantive hearing was set down for 11 January 2002. It ended on 25 January 2002 and judgment was reserved.
21. On 14 February 2003 the High Court delivered its judgment refusing the relief (prohibition of prosecution) sought by the applicant. It found that both parties were at fault for the delay caused by the discovery process: the applicant for not being more focused as to the documents he required (and in particular not complying with the order of 28 January 1999); the respondents for being slow to furnish discovery. It also stated that the respondents had been entirely to blame for the adjournment of the proceedings on 22 February 2000. However, it considered that this default had not caused any significant delay because the proceedings had to be adjourned anyway to await the judgment in the related case. Accordingly, by judgment of 13 March 2003 the High Court removed the stay on prosecution and ordered the applicant to pay the State’s costs.
22. In April 2003 the applicant appealed (against the refusal of the prohibition order and the order for costs). In October 2003 the Supreme Court heard the appeal. On 17 December 2003 it rejected the appeal concerning the refusal of the prohibition order. It considered that some of the delay in the judicial review proceedings was the fault of the applicant (for not complying with the order of 28 January 1999); some was necessary (in order to await the judgment in the related case); some was caused by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“D.P.P.”) (in particular the adjournments they sought during the protracted discovery process); and some was caused by the High Court (in failing to deliver judgment for over a year). It held that it could only take into account the delay for which the D.P.P. was responsible.
23. As to the “considerable delay” of the High Court in delivering judgment, it said:
“...it is a complete misunderstanding of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Doran v. Ireland [no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003X (extracts)] to treat it as authority for the proposition that, in a case such as the present, the right of the public, as represented by the D.P.P., to the trial of serious offences can be defeated by a delay for which the prosecuting authorities bore no responsibility. The decision of the majority of the [C]ourt in Doran v Ireland ... does not have the effect of entitling a party in the domestic courts to relief which would otherwise not be available to him.”
24. On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Court affirmed the costs order of the High Court and required the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.
25. In December 2004 the applicant was informed by the police that, in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the prosecution would proceed before the District Court on 22 December 2004. On that date, the prosecutor withdrew charges concerning four complainants but maintained the charges of sexual assault concerning 38 complainants. The prosecution sought and was granted an adjournment (until 19 January 2005) to allow it to prepare a Book of Evidence after which it was envisaged that the charges would be transferred for trial on indictment. On 26 January 2005 the District Court lifted his bail conditions. It ordered the transfer of the charges to the Circuit Court for trial on indictment. The District Court refused to conduct a preliminary examination of the charges under Part II of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 (which provision had been repealed by Part III of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 in October 2001). On 21 February 2005 the High Court granted leave to seek judicial review of this refusal by the District Court.
A medical report dated 11 March 2005 concluded that the applicant’s advanced age and the ongoing prosecution “have affected his physical and mental condition to such an extent that at this point in time his capacity to defend himself is impaired”. The Medical Council disciplinary proceedings and the civil assault actions have been adjourned pending the criminal proceedings.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
6
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-1


ITEMID: 001-83811
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: UKR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2007
DOCNAME: CASE OF KOZINETS v. UKRAINE
IMPORTANCE: 3
CONCLUSION: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
JUDGES: Peer Lorenzen
TEXT: 4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5. At the material time the applicant was the director and allegedly the owner of the Passage private company, which provided currency exchange services. On 16 August 1996 the tax police inspected one of the departments of the company, seized some documents and cash assets, and imposed financial sanctions.
6. On 28 April 1998 the applicant was invited to the Kharkiv State Tax Police Inspectorate (Податкова міліція Державної податкової інспекції м. Харкова) to retrieve the documents that had been removed by the tax police. According to the applicant, at 9 a.m., when he entered the office of S., the Head of the Tax Police Inspectorate, and asked when the documents in question would be returned, the latter started to beat him and broke the tape recorder which the applicant had in his pocket. According to the applicant, several people were present at the time in S.'s office. The latter allegedly told his subordinates not to let the applicant out until 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the applicant left the Tax Police premises.
7. On the same day the applicant complained about these events to the Anti-corruption Department of the Kharkiv Regional State Tax Inspectorate (Відділ по боротьбі з корупцією Державної податкової інспекції в Харківській області). The applicant was sent for a medical examination and his complaint was transferred to the Prosecutor's Office.
8. On 29 April 1998 the medical examination revealed that the applicant had suffered minor injuries, and in particular that he had bruises on his abdomen. No head injury was identified.
9. From 30 April to 23 May 1998 the applicant was a patient in the neurosurgery department of Hospital No. 4. He was diagnosed with concussion and numerous bruises were found on his head.
10. On 11 June 1998 a further forensic medical examination concluded that the applicant was suffering from moderately severe physical injuries (including a head injury) which had caused a temporary disability.
11. On 18 August 1998 the financial sanctions against the Passage company were rescinded.
12. According to a forensic medical expert opinion of 1 September 1998, the applicant's medical treatment from 30 April to 8 June 1998 was for a head injury, which could have been inflicted on 28 April 1998 or later. It further stated that, since according to the medical examination of 29 April 1998 the applicant had not had a head injury, it was impossible to establish a link between the incident of 28 April 1998 and the applicant's medical treatment for a head injury.
13. On 2 September 1998 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office (прокуратура м. Харкова) refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr S. for want of corpus delicti. In particular, S. and Sh. and P. (employees of the Tax Police who had been present in the office during the events in question) and Zh. (a security officer) testified that the applicant had not been subjected to any kind of physical pressure. S. and Sh. submitted that the applicant had tried to record his conversation with S. and when the latter had asked the applicant to give him the tape recorder, the applicant had dropped it on the floor and stepped on it. G. (an associate of the applicant, who had accompanied him to the Tax Police office) testified that he had seen the applicant through the window being beaten by S. It was established that it had not been physically possible for G. to have seen the events in question; in any event his testimony was rejected since he was “an interested person”.
14. On 24 November 1998 the cash assets seized in 1996 were returned to the applicant.
15. On 1 December 1998 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office rejected the applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings against the tax police officers who had carried out the inspection on 16 August 1996.
16. On 29 December 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (прокуратура Харківської області) quashed the decision of 2 September 1998 and opened criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances of the incident of 28 April 1998. It was stated that the applicant had indeed received moderately serious physical injuries but that the origin of these injuries was unknown. Therefore, more extensive investigation into the facts of the case was needed.
17. On 9 and 19 April 1999 two additional forensic medical examinations were carried out. The experts held that there was not enough information to conclude that the head injury sustained by the applicant had been received between 28 and 30 April 1998. The bruises on the applicant's abdomen could have resulted from a blow inflicted three to five days before 29 April 1998.
18. On 21 April 1999 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of evidence that the applicant had been beaten by S.
19. On 14 January 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 21 April 1999, in particular because the hospital doctors who had examined the applicant had not been questioned, and remitted the case for additional investigation to the Kyiv District Prosecutor's Office (прокуратура Київського району м. Харкова).
20. By a decision of 18 February 2000 the investigating officer of the Kyiv District Prosecutor's Office refused to recognise the applicant as a victim in the proceedings, on the ground of lack of proof that he had sustained moderately severe physical injuries. Following this decision the applicant refused to testify or participate in the investigation.
21. On 29 June 2000 an investigator of the Kyiv District Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground that the minor physical injuries sustained by the applicant could have been inflicted earlier than 28 April 1998 and that there was no evidence that they had been inflicted by S. In particular, there was no medical evidence to confirm when the applicant had received the head injury. The Tax Police employees testified that S. had not beaten the applicant and the only witness who testified otherwise (G.) had not physically been able to see the events in question; this had been confirmed in a reconstruction of the events.
22. On 11 January 2001 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv quashed the decision of 29 June 2000 and ordered that the criminal proceedings be reopened. The court emphasised that the investigation had failed to find out how the applicant had received the injuries in question.
23. On 5 April 2001 the applicant was declared a victim of an alleged crime.
24. On 23 April 2001 the applicant introduced a civil claim for compensation for pecuniary damage against S. to be considered in the course of the criminal proceedings.
25. On 14 August 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings for abuse of power against S., for want of corpus delicti.
26. On 20 September 2001 a forensic medical examination concluded that on 29 April 1998 the applicant had had bruises on his abdomen which could have been inflicted on 28 April 1998.
27. On 3 October 2001 the Kyiv District Prosecutor's Office discontinued the criminal proceedings for the infliction of moderately severe physical injuries, in the absence of evidence of a crime.
28. On 10 October 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office quashed the decision of 3 October 2001 and remitted the case back for further investigation.
29. On 12 November 2001 the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv quashed the decision of 14 August 2001.
30. On 27 June 2002 a fresh medical examination again concluded that on 29 April 1998 the applicant had had bruises on his abdomen which could have been inflicted on 28 April 1998.
31. On 27 August 2002 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground that it was not possible to establish with sufficient certainty that the injuries suffered by the applicant had been inflicted by S. Moreover, the injuries sustained (bruises on the applicant's abdomen) were classified as minor and in this case, according to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant should have brought a private prosecution directly before the court.
32. On 21 October 2002 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against S. on suspicion of burglary, for want of corpus delicti. It was stated that the applicant's tape recorder had been broken as a result of a dispute which had occurred on 28 April 1998 between the applicant and S. However, the applicant had provoked S.'s reaction by trying to record their conversation.
33. By letters of 2 October, 6 and 20 November and 18 December 2002 and 2 January 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that the criminal proceedings had been terminated lawfully.
34. In March 2001 the applicant instituted defamation proceedings in the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office. He stated that he had submitted numerous complaints of violations to different State authorities. These had been forwarded to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office, which in its response letters to the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, to the Member of Parliament, L., and to the Prosecutor General, had provided false information about the actions of the tax police in respect of the applicant's enterprise and about the investigation in the applicant's criminal case.
35. On 2 October 2001 the court upheld the applicant's complaint.
36. On 21 February 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 2 October 2001 and rejected the applicant's complaint as unsubstantiated.
37. On 1 October 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal under the cassation procedure.
38. On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court against the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, claiming that he had unlawfully refused to examine the applicant's complaints. On 27 January 2004 the court returned the applicant's complaint as he had failed to comply with the procedural requirements.
39. The relevant provision of the Constitution of Ukraine reads as follows:
Article 28
“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her dignity.
No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his or her dignity. ...”
40. Article 4 of the Code provides that the court, prosecutor or investigator must, to the extent that it is within their power to do so, institute criminal proceedings in every case where signs of a crime have been discovered, take all necessary measures provided by law to establish whether a crime has been committed and the identity of the perpetrators and punish them.
41. In accordance with Article 27 of the Code criminal proceedings on infliction of minor physical injuries are instituted by the courts following complaints by the victims (private prosecution proceedings). No pre-trial investigation is held in such cases.
42. Article 215 of the Code provides that an investigator's decision to discontinue the proceedings can be appealed against to the prosecutor or to the court.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3


ITEMID: 001-57619
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: GBR
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 1989
DOCNAME: CASE OF SOERING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
IMPORTANCE: 2
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 3 (possible);No violation of Art. 6-3-c (possible);No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
JUDGES: C. Russo;J.A. Carrillo Salcedo;N. Valticos
TEXT: 11. The applicant, Mr Jens Soering, was born on 1 August 1966 and is a German national. He is currently detained in prison in England pending extradition to the United States of America to face charges of murder in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
12. The homicides in question were committed in Bedford County, Virginia, in March 1985. The victims, William Reginald Haysom (aged 72) and Nancy Astor Haysom (aged 53), were the parents of the applicant’s girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom, who is a Canadian national. Death in each case was the result of multiple and massive stab and slash wounds to the neck, throat and body. At the time the applicant and Elizabeth Haysom, aged 18 and 20 respectively, were students at the University of Virginia. They disappeared together from Virginia in October 1985, but were arrested in England in April 1986 in connection with cheque fraud.
13. The applicant was interviewed in England between 5 and 8 June 1986 by a police investigator from the Sheriff’s Department of Bedford County. In a sworn affidavit dated 24 July 1986 the investigator recorded the applicant as having admitted the killings in his presence and in that of two United Kingdom police officers. The applicant had stated that he was in love with Miss Haysom but that her parents were opposed to the relationship. He and Miss Haysom had therefore planned to kill them. They rented a car in Charlottesville and travelled to Washington where they set up an alibi. The applicant then went to the parents’ house, discussed the relationship with them and, when they told him that they would do anything to prevent it, a row developed during which he killed them with a knife.
On 13 June 1986 a grand jury of the Circuit Court of Bedford County indicted him on charges of murdering the Haysom parents. The charges alleged capital murder of both of them and the separate non-capital murders of each.
14. On 11 August 1986 the Government of the United States of America requested the applicant’s and Miss Haysom’s extradition under the terms of the Extradition Treaty of 1972 between the United States and the United Kingdom (see paragraph 30 below). On 12 September a Magistrate at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court was required by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to issue a warrant for the applicant’s arrest under the provisions of section 8 of the Extradition Act 1870 (see paragraph 32 below). The applicant was subsequently arrested on 30 December at HM Prison Chelmsford after serving a prison sentence for cheque fraud.
15. On 29 October 1986 the British Embassy in Washington addressed a request to the United States authorities in the following terms:
"Because the death penalty has been abolished in Great Britain, the Embassy has been instructed to seek an assurance, in accordance with the terms of ... the Extradition Treaty, that, in the event of Mr Soering being surrendered and being convicted of the crimes for which he has been indicted ..., the death penalty, if imposed, will not be carried out.
Should it not be possible on constitutional grounds for the United States Government to give such an assurance, the United Kingdom authorities ask that the United States Government undertake to recommend to the appropriate authorities that the death penalty should not be imposed or, if imposed, should not be executed."
16. On 30 December 1986 the applicant was interviewed in prison by a German prosecutor (Staatsanwalt) from Bonn. In a sworn witness statement the prosecutor recorded the applicant as having said, inter alia, that "he had never had the intention of killing Mr and Mrs Haysom and ... he could only remember having inflicted wounds at the neck on Mr and Mrs Haysom which must have had something to do with their dying later"; and that in the immediately preceding days "there had been no talk whatsoever [between him and Elizabeth Haysom] about killing Elizabeth’s parents". The prosecutor also referred to documents which had been put at his disposal, for example the statements made by the applicant to the American police investigator, the autopsy reports and two psychiatric reports on the applicant (see paragraph 21 below).
On 11 February 1987 the local court in Bonn issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest in respect of the alleged murders. On 11 March the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany requested his extradition to the Federal Republic under the Extradition Treaty of 1872 between the Federal Republic and the United Kingdom (see paragraph 31 below). The Secretary of State was then advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that, although the German request contained proof that German courts had jurisdiction to try the applicant, the evidence submitted, since it consisted solely of the admissions made by the applicant to the Bonn prosecutor in the absence of a caution, did not amount to a prima facie case against him and that a magistrate would not be able under the Extradition Act 1870 (see paragraph 32 below) to commit him to await extradition to Germany on the strength of admissions obtained in such circumstances.
17. In a letter dated 20 April 1987 to the Director of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, the Attorney for Bedford County, Virginia (Mr James W. Updike Jr) stated that, on the assumption that the applicant could not be tried in Germany on the basis of admissions alone, there was no means of compelling witnesses from the United States to appear in a criminal court in Germany. On 23 April the United States, by diplomatic note, requested the applicant’s extradition to the United States in preference to the Federal Republic of Germany.
18. On 8 May 1987 Elizabeth Haysom was surrendered for extradition to the United States. After pleading guilty on 22 August as an accessory to the murder of her parents, she was sentenced on 6 October to 90 years’ imprisonment (45 years on each count of murder).
19. On 20 May 1987 the United Kingdom Government informed the Federal Republic of Germany that the United States had earlier "submitted a request, supported by prima facie evidence, for the extradition of Mr Soering". The United Kingdom Government notified the Federal RepublicUnited States request". They further indicated that they had sought an assurance from the United States authorities on the question of the death penalty and that "in the event that the court commits Mr Soering, his surrender to the United States authorities would be subject to the receipt of satisfactory assurances on this matter".
20. On 1 June 1987 Mr Updike swore an affidavit in his capacity as Attorney for Bedford County, in which he certified as follows:
"I hereby certify that should Jens Soering be convicted of the offence of capital murder as charged in Bedford County, Virginia ... a representation will be made in the name of the United Kingdom to the judge at the time of sentencing that it is the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should not be imposed or carried out."
This assurance was transmitted to the United Kingdom Government under cover of a diplomatic note on 8 June. It was repeated in the same terms in a further affidavit from Mr Updike sworn on 16 February 1988 and forwarded to the United Kingdom by diplomatic note on 17 May 1988. In the same note the Federal Government of the United States undertook to ensure that the commitment of the appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to make representations on behalf of the United Kingdom would be honoured.
During the course of the present proceedings the Virginia authorities informed the United Kingdom Government that Mr Updike was not planning to provide any further assurances and intended to seek the death penalty in Mr Soering’s case because the evidence, in his determination, supported such action.
21. On 16 June 1987 at the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court committal proceedings took place before the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate.
The Government of the United States adduced evidence that on the night of 30 March 1985 the applicant killed William and Nancy Haysom at their home in Bedford County, Virginia. In particular, evidence was given of the applicant’s own admissions as recorded in the affidavit of the Bedford County police investigator (see paragraph 13 above).
On behalf of the applicant psychiatric evidence was adduced from a consultant forensic psychiatrist (report dated 15 December 1986 by Dr Henrietta Bullard) that he was immature and inexperienced and had lost his personal identity in a symbiotic relationship with his girlfriend - a powerful, persuasive and disturbed young woman. The psychiatric report concluded:
"There existed between Miss Haysom and Soering a ‘folie à deux’, in which the most disturbed partner was Miss Haysom. ...
At the time of the offence, it is my opinion that Jens Soering was suffering from [such] an abnormality of mind due to inherent causes as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. The psychiatric syndrome referred to as ‘folie à deux’ is a well-recognised state of mind where one partner is suggestible to the extent that he or she believes in the psychotic delusions of the other. The degree of disturbance of Miss Haysom borders on the psychotic and, over the course of many months, she was able to persuade Soering that he might have to kill her parents for she and him to survive as a couple. ... Miss Haysom had a stupefying and mesmeric effect on Soering which led to an abnormal psychological state in which he became unable to think rationally or question the absurdities in Miss Haysom’s view of her life and the influence of her parents. ...
In conclusion, it is my opinion that, at the time of the offences, Soering was suffering from an abnormality of mind which, in this country, would constitute a defence of ‘not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter’."
Dr Bullard’s conclusions were substantially the same as those contained in an earlier psychiatric report (dated 11 December 1986 by Dr John R. Hamilton, Medical Director of Broadmoor Hospital), which was not however put before the Magistrates’ Court.
The Chief Magistrate found that the evidence of Dr Bullard was not relevant to any issue that he had to decide and committed the applicant to await the Secretary of State’s order for his return to the United States.
22. On 29 June 1987 Mr Soering applied to the Divisional Court for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of his committal and for leave to apply for judicial review. On 11 December both applications were refused by the Divisional Court (Lord Justice Lloyd and Mr Justice Macpherson).
In support of his application for leave to apply for judicial review, Mr Soering had submitted that the assurance received from the United States authorities was so worthless that no reasonable Secretary of State could regard it as satisfactory under Article IV of the Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States (see paragraph 36 below). In his judgment Lord Justice Lloyd agreed that "the assurance leaves something to be desired":
"Article IV of the Treaty contemplates an assurance that the death penalty will not be carried out. That must presumably mean an assurance by or on behalf of the Executive Branch of Government, which in this case would be the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The certificate sworn by Mr Updike, far from being an assurance on behalf of the Executive, is nothing more than an undertaking to make representations on behalf of the United Kingdom to the judge. I cannot believe that this is what was intended when the Treaty was signed. But I can understand that there may well be difficulties in obtaining more by way of assurance in view of the federal nature of the United States Constitution."
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the claim was premature. Lord Justice Lloyd stated:
"The Secretary of State has not yet decided whether to accept the assurance as satisfactory and he has certainly not yet decided whether or not to issue a warrant for Soering’s surrender. Other factors may well intervene between now and then. This court will never allow itself to be put in the position of reviewing an administrative decision before the decision has been made."
As a supplementary reason, he added:
"Secondly, even if a decision to regard the assurance as satisfactory had already been made by the Secretary of State, then on the evidence currently before us I am far from being persuaded that such a decision would have been irrational in the Wednesbury sense." (As to "irrationality" in the Wednesbury sense, see paragraph 35 below.)
23. On 30 June 1988 the House of Lords rejected the applicant’s petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court.
24. On 14 July 1988 the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State, requesting him to exercise his discretion not to make an order for the applicant’s surrender under section 11 of the Extradition Act 1870 (see paragraph 34 below).
This request was rejected, and on 3 August 1988 the Secretary of State signed a warrant ordering the applicant’s surrender to the United States authorities. However, the applicant has not been transferred to the United States by virtue of the interim measures indicated in the present proceedings firstly by the European Commission and then by the European Court (see paragraphs 4 above and 77 below).
25. On 5 August 1988 the applicant was transferred to a prison hospital where he remained until early November 1988 under the special regime applied to suicide-risk prisoners.
According to psychiatric evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant (report dated 16 March 1989 by Dr D. Somekh), the applicant’s dread of extreme physical violence and homosexual abuse from other inmates in death row in Virginia is in particular having a profound psychological effect on him. The psychiatrist’s report records a mounting desperation in the applicant, together with objective fears that he may seek to take his own life.
26. By a declaration dated 20 March 1989 submitted to this Court, the applicant stated that should the United Kingdom Government require that he be deported to the Federal Republic of Germany he would consent to such requirement and would present no factual or legal opposition against the making or execution of an order to that effect.
27. In England murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The penalty is life imprisonment. The death penalty cannot be imposed for murder (Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, section 1). Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 provides that where a person kills another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing. A person who but for the section would be liable to be convicted of murder shall be liable to be convicted of manslaughter.
28. English courts do not exercise criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts of foreigners abroad except in certain cases immaterial to the present proceedings. Consequently, neither the applicant, as a German citizen, nor Elizabeth Haysom, a Canadian citizen, was or is amenable to criminal trial in the United Kingdom.
29. The relevant general law on extradition is contained in the Extradition Acts 1870-1935.
30. The extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States of America are governed by the Extradition Treaty signed by the two Governments on 8 June 1972, a Supplementary Treaty signed on 25 June 1982, and an Exchange of Notes dated 19 and 20 August 1986 amending the Supplementary Treaty. These arrangements have been incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom by Orders in Council (the United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976, S.I. 1976/2144 and the United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1986, S.I. 1986/2020).
By virtue of Article I of the Extradition Treaty, "each Contracting Party undertakes to extradite to the other, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions specified in this Treaty, any person found in its territory who has been accused or convicted of any offence [specified in the Treaty and including murder], committed within the jurisdiction of the other Party".
31. Extradition between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany is governed by the Treaty of 14 May 1872 between the United Kingdom and Germany for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals, as reapplied with amendments by an Agreement signed at Bonn on 23 February 1960 and as further amended by an Exchange of Notes dated 25 and 27 September 1978. These agreements have been incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom by Orders in Council (the Federal Republic of Germany (Extradition) Order 1960, S.I. 1960/1375 and the Federal Republic of Germany (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1978, S.I. 1978/1403).
32. After receipt of an extradition request, the Secretary of State may, by order, require a magistrate to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive criminal (Extradition Act 1870, sections 7 and 8).
Extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom consist in an extradition hearing before a magistrate. Section 10 of the Extradition Act 1870 provides that if "such evidence is produced as (subject to the provisions of this Act) would, according to the law of England, justify the committal for trial of the prisoner if the crime of which he is accused had been committed in England ... the ... magistrate shall commit him to prison but otherwise he shall order him to be discharged". A magistrate must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial; before committing him a prima facie case must be made out against him. "The test is whether, if the evidence before the magistrate stood alone at the trial, a reasonable jury properly directed could accept it and find a verdict of guilty" (Schtraks v. Government of Israel [1964] Appeal Cases 556).
33. Section 11 of the Extradition Act 1870 provides that decisions taken in committal proceedings may be challenged by way of application for habeas corpus. In practice, such application is made to a Divisional Court and, with leave, to the House of Lords. Habeas corpus proceedings are primarily concerned with checking that the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear the case; that there was evidence before him which could justify the committal; that the offence is an extradition crime which is not of a political character; and that there is no bar on other grounds to surrender. Section 12 of the 1870 Act provides for the release of a prisoner, if not surrendered, at the conclusion of such proceedings or within two months of committal unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary.
34. Furthermore, under section 11 of the 1870 Act the Secretary of State enjoys a discretion not to sign the surrender warrant (Atkinson v. United States [1971] Appeal Cases 197). This discretion may override a decision of the courts that a fugitive should be surrendered, and it is open to every prisoner who has exhausted his remedies by way of application for habeas corpus to petition the Secretary of State for that purpose. In considering whether to order the fugitive’s surrender, the Secretary of State is bound to take account of fresh evidence which was not before the magistrate (Schtraks v. Government of Israel, loc. cit.).
35. In addition, it is open to the prisoner to challenge both the decision of the Secretary of State rejecting his petition and the decision to sign the warrant in judicial review proceedings. In such proceedings the court may review the exercise of the Secretary of State’s discretion on the basis that it is tainted with illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety (Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All England Law Reports 935).
Irrationality is determined on the basis of the administrative-law principles set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 King’s Bench Reports 223 (the so-called "Wednesbury principles" of reasonableness). The test in an extradition case would be that no reasonable Secretary of State could have made an order for return in the circumstances. As the judgment of Lord Justice Lloyd in the Divisional Court in the present case shows (see paragraph 22 above), the reliance placed by the Secretary of State on any assurance given by the requesting State may be tested to determine whether such reliance is within the confines of "reasonableness".
In R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 All England Law Reports 940 at 952, a House of Lords case concerning a refusal to grant asylum, Lord Bridge, while acknowledging the limitations of the Wednesbury principles, explained that the courts will apply them extremely strictly against the Secretary of State in a case in which the life of the applicant is at risk:
"Within those limitations the court must, I think, be entitled to subject an administrative decision to the most rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual’s right to life and, when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant’s life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny."
Lord Templeman added (at page 956):
"In my opinion where the result of a flawed decision may imperil life or liberty a special responsibility lies on the court in the examination of the decision-making process."
However, the courts will not review any decision of the Secretary of State by reason of the fact only that he failed to consider whether or not there was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (R v. Secretary of State, ex parte Kirkwood [1984] 1 Weekly Law Reports 913).
In addition, the courts have no jurisdiction to issue interim injunctions against the Crown in judicial review proceedings (Kirkwood, ibid., and R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others, The Times, 19 May 1989).
36. There is no provision in the Extradition Acts relating to the death penalty, but Article IV of the United Kingdom-United States Treaty provides:
"If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the relevant law of the requesting Party, but the relevant law of the requested Party does not provide for the death penalty in a similar case, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives assurances satisfactory to the requested Party that the death penalty will not be carried out."
37. In the case of a fugitive requested by the United States who faces a charge carrying the death penalty, it is the Secretary of State’s practice, pursuant to Article IV of the United Kingdom-United States Extradition Treaty, to accept an assurance from the prosecuting authorities of the relevant State that a representation will be made to the judge at the time of sentencing that it is the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should be neither imposed no carried out. This practice has been described by Mr David Mellor, then Minister of State at the Home Office, in the following terms:
"The written undertakings about the death penalty that the Secretary of State obtains from the Federal authorities amount to an undertaking that the views of the United Kingdom will be represented to the judge. At the time of sentencing he will be informed that the United Kingdom does not wish the death penalty to be imposed or carried out. That means that the United Kingdom authorities render up a fugitive or are prepared to send a citizen to face an American court on the clear understanding that the death penalty will not be carried out - it has never been carried out in such cases. It would be a fundamental blow to the extradition arrangements between our two countries if the death penalty were carried out on an individual who had been returned under those circumstances." (Hansard, 10 March 1987, col. 955)
There has, however, never been a case in which the effectiveness of such an undertaking has been tested.
38. Concurrent requests for extradition in respect of the same crime from two different States are not a common occurrence. If both requests are received at the same time, the Secretary of State decides which request is to be proceeded with, having regard to all the facts of the case, including the nationality of the fugitive and the place of commission of the offence.
In this respect Article X of the Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States provides as follows:
"If the extradition of a person is requested concurrently by one of the Contracting Parties and by another State or States, either for the same offence or for different offences, the requested Party shall make its decision, in so far as its law allows, having regard to all the circumstances, including the provisions in this regard in any Agreements in force between the requested Party and the requesting States, the relative seriousness and place of commission of the offences, the respective dates of the requests, the nationality of the person sought and the possibility of subsequent extradition to another State."
39. The relevant definition and classification of murder and sentencing for murder are governed by the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and the decided cases in the State and Federal courts.
40. Section 18.2-31 of the Virginia Code provides that eight types of homicide constitute capital murder, punishable as a Class 1 felony, including "the wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or transaction" (sub-section (g)). The punishment for a Class 1 felony is "death or imprisonment for life" (Virginia Code, section 18.2-10(a)). Except in the case of murder for hire, only the "triggerman", that is the actual perpetrator of the killing, may be charged with capital murder (Johnston v. Commonwealth, 220 Virginia Reports (Va.) 146, 255 South Eastern Reporter, Second Series (S.E.2d) 525 (1979)).
Murder other than capital murder is classified as murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree and is punishable by varying terms of imprisonment (Virginia Code, sections 18.2-10(b), (c) and 18.2-32).
41. In most felony trials, including trials for capital murder, the defendant is guaranteed trial by jury. The defendant may waive this right but does not often do so.
42. The sentencing procedure in a capital murder case in Virginia is a separate proceeding from the determination of guilt. Following a determination of guilt of capital murder, the same jury, or judge sitting without a jury, will forthwith proceed to hear evidence regarding punishment. All relevant evidence concerning the offence and the defendant is admissible. Evidence in mitigation is subject to almost no limitation, while evidence of aggravation is restricted by statute (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.4).
43. Unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of at least one of two statutory aggravating circumstances - future dangerousness or vileness - the sentencer may not return a death sentence.
"Future dangerousness" exists where there is a probability that the defendant would commit "criminal acts of violence" in the future such as would constitute a "continuing serious threat to society" (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.2).
"Vileness" exists when the crime was "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an aggravated battery to the victim" (Virginia Code, ibid.). The words "depravity of mind" mean "a degree of moral turpitude and psychical debasement surpassing that inherent in the definition of ordinary legal malice and premeditation". The words "aggravated battery" mean a battery which, "qualitatively and quantitatively, is more culpable than the minimum necessary to accomplish an act of murder" (Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 455, 248 S.E.2d 135 (1978), certiorari denied, 441 United States Supreme Court Reports (U.S.) 967 (1979)). Proof of multiple wounds sustained by the victim, particularly a neck wound, which even considered alone, constituted an aggravated battery in the light of the savage, methodical manner in which it was inflicted, leaving the victim to suffer an interval of agony awaiting death, has been held to satisfy the test of "vileness" under this section (Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 303, 329 S.E.2d 807, certiorari denied, 106 Supreme Court Reporter (S.Ct.) 339, 88 United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition, Second Series (L.Ed.2d) 324 (1985)).
44. The imposition of the death penalty on a young person who has reached the age of majority - which is 18 years (Virginia Code, section 1.13.42) - is not precluded under Virginia law. Age is a fact to be weighed by the jury (Peterson v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 289, 302 S.E.2d 520, certiorari denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 202, 78 L.Ed.2d 176 (1983)).
45. Facts in mitigation are specified by statute as including but not being limited to the following:
"(i) the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity, or (ii) the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, or (iii) the victim was a participant in the defendant’s conduct or consented to the act, or (iv) at the time of the commission of the capital felony, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, or (v) the age of the defendant at the time of the commission of the capital offence" (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.4B).
46. In a case of trial by jury, the jury in a capital murder case has the duty to consider all evidence relevant to sentencing, both favourable and unfavourable, before fixing punishment. In particular, a jury may sentence a defendant to death only after having considered the evidence in mitigation of the offence (Watkins v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 469, 331 S.E.2d 422 (1985), certiorari denied, 475 U.S. 1099, 106 S.Ct. 1503, 89 L.Ed.2d 903 (1986)). Furthermore, unless the jury is unanimous the sentence cannot be death but must be life imprisonment (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.4). Even if one or more of the statutory aggravating circumstances are shown, the sentencer still remains at liberty to fix a life sentence instead of death in the light of the mitigating circumstances and even for no reason other than mercy (Smith v. Commonwealth, loc. cit.).
47. Following a sentence of death, the trial judge must order the preparation of an investigative report detailing the defendant’s history and "any and all other relevant facts, to the end that the court may be fully advised as to whether the penalty of death is appropriate and just"; after consideration of the report, and upon good cause shown, the judge may set aside the sentence of death and impose a life sentence (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.5).
48. Following a moratorium consequent upon a decision of the United States Supreme Court (Furman v. Georgia, 92 S.Ct. 2726 (1972)), imposition of the death penalty was resumed in Virginia in 1977, since which date seven persons have been executed. The means of execution used is electrocution.
The Virginia death penalty statutory scheme, including the provision on mandatory review of sentence (see paragraph 52 below), has been judicially determined to be constitutional. It was considered to prevent the arbitrary or capricious imposition of the death penalty and narrowly to channel the sentencer’s discretion (Smith v. Commonwealth, loc. cit.; Turnver v. Bass, 753 Federal Reporter, Second Series (F.2d) 342 (4th Circuit, 1985); Briley v. Bass, 750 F.2d 1238 (4th Circuit, 1984)). The death penalty under the Virginia capital murder statute has also been held not to constitute cruel and unusual punishment or to deny a defendant due process or equal protection (Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 257 S.E.2d 808 (1979), certiorari denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980)). The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected the submission that death by electrocution would cause "the needless imposition of pain before death and emotional suffering while awaiting execution of sentence" (ibid.).
49. The law of Virginia generally does not recognise a defence of diminished capacity (Stamper v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 707, 324 S.E.2d 682 (1985)).
50. A plea of insanity at the time of the offence is recognised as a defence in Virginia and, if successful, is a bar to conviction. Such a plea will apply where the defendant knows that the act is wrong but is driven by an irresistible impulse, induced by some mental disease affecting the volitive powers, to commit it (Thompson v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 704, 70 S.E.2d 284 (1952) and Godley v. Commonwealth, 2 Virginia Court of Appeals Reports (Va. App.) 249 (1986)) or where he does not understand the nature, character and consequences of his act or is unable to distinguish right from wrong (Price v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 452, 323 S.E.2d 106 (1984)). Where no insanity defence is interposed, the defendant’s mental condition is only relevant at the guilt stage in so far as it might be probative of a fact in issue, for example premeditation at the time of the killing (Le Vasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 304 S.E.2d 644 (1983), certiorari denied, 464 U.S. 1063, 104 S.Ct 744, 79 L.Ed.2d 202 (1984)).
51. In a capital murder trial, the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offence, including any level of mental illness, may be pleaded as a mitigating factor at the sentencing stage. Evidence on this may include, but is not limited to, showing that the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance or that at the time of the offence his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct was significantly impaired (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.4B - see paragraph 45 above).
Additionally, indigent capital murder defendants are entitled by statute to the appointment of a qualified mental health expert to assist in the preparation and presentation of information concerning their history, character and mental condition with a view to establishing factors in mitigation (Virginia Code, section 19.2-264.3:1).
Upon presentation of evidence of the defendant’s mental state, the sentencer may elect to impose life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
52. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviews automatically every case in which a capital sentence has been passed, regardless of the plea entered by the defendant at his trial. In addition to consideration of "any errors in the trial" alleged by the defendant on appeal, the Supreme Court reviews the death sentence to determine whether it was imposed "under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor" and whether it is excessive or disproportionate "to the penalty imposed in similar cases" (Virginia Code, section 17-110.1).
This automatic direct appeal is governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia and encompasses various time-limits for the filing of briefs. In addition, precedence is given to the review of sentences of death before any other case (Rule 5.23; see also Virginia Code, section 17-110.2). Normally the time taken by this appeal does not exceed six months.
After this appeal process is completed, the sentence of death will be executed unless a stay of execution is entered. As a practical matter, a stay will be entered when the prisoner initiates further proceedings.
There has apparently been only one case since 1977 where the Virginia Supreme Court has itself reduced a death sentence to life imprisonment.
53. The prisoner may apply to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia. If unsuccessful, he may begin collateral attacks upon the conviction and sentence in habeas corpus proceedings in both State and Federal courts.
The prisoner may file a habeas corpus petition either in the Supreme Court of Virginia or in the trial court, with appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Thereafter he may once more apply to the United States Supreme Court for certiorari review of the State’s habeas corpus decision.
He may then file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. The decision of the District Court may be appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, followed, if no relief is obtained, by a petition for certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court.
At each stage of his collateral attacks, the prisoner may seek a stay of execution pending final determination of his applications.
54. The Virginia and Federal statutes and rules of court set time-limits for the presentation of appeals following conviction or appeals against the decisions in habeas corpus proceedings. There are, however, no time-limits for filing the initial State and Federal habeas corpus petitions.
55. The grounds which may be presented and argued on appeal and in habeas corpus proceedings are restricted by the "contemporaneous objections rule" to those which have been raised in the course of the trial (see Rule 5.25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia). The rule is based on the principle that the trial itself is the "main event", so that the real issues between the parties should be canvassed and determined at the trial and not on appeal or in any subsequent review proceedings. It was adopted to prevent the setting of traps for trial courts (Keeney v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 678, 137 South Eastern Reporter (S.E.) 478 (1927)), and so that the trial judge will be given the opportunity to rule upon the issues intelligently and unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials will be avoided (Woodson v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 285, 176 S.E.2d 818 (1970), certiorari denied, 401 U.S. 959 (1971)). The rule applies equally in capital cases and is recognised by the Federal courts (see Briley v. Bass, 584 Federal Supplement (F. Supp.) 807 (Eastern District Virginia), aff’d, 742 F.2d 155 (4th Circuit 1984)).
By way of exception to the rule, errors to which no objections were made at the trial may be objected to on appeal where this is necessary to attain the ends of justice or where good cause is shown. This exception has been applied by the Supreme Court of Virginia to overturn a capital murder conviction (Ball v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 754, 273 S.E.2d 790 (1981)). In death penalty cases, the proportionality of the sentence and the issue of whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor (see paragraph 52 above) is reviewed without regard to whether objection was made at trial (see Briley v. Bass, loc. cit.).
56. The average time between trial and execution in Virginia, calculated on the basis of the seven executions which have taken place since 1977, is six to eight years. The delays are primarily due to a strategy by convicted prisoners to prolong the appeal proceedings as much as possible. The United States Supreme Court has not as yet considered or ruled on the "death row phenomenon" and in particular whether it falls foul of the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
57. All prisoners who have been sentenced to death have individual lawyers to represent them, whether privately recruited or court-appointed. On the other hand, there is no statutory provision expressly mandating legal assistance to be made available to the indigent prisoner to file habeas corpus petitions. However, it has recently been affirmed by a United States Court of Appeal that the Commonwealth of Virginia is required to provide indigent prisoners who have been sentenced to death with the assistance of lawyers to pursue challenges to their death sentences in State habeas corpus actions (Giarratano v. Murray, 847 F.2d 1118 (4th Circuit 1988) (en banc) - case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court). In Federal habeas corpus and certiorari proceedings case-law does not impose the same obligation (ibid., p. 1122, column 1), for the reason that the Federal courts would have available the appellate briefs, a transcript and State court opinion (in certiorari proceedings) and the briefs of counsel, a transcript and opinion (in habeas corpus proceedings).
Virginia inmates also have access to legal information and assistance in the form of law libraries and institutional attorneys. The institutional attorneys are available to assist inmates in "any legal matter relating to their incarceration" (Virginia Code, section 53.1-40), including the drafting of habeas corpus petitions and motions for appointment of counsel for the inmates to file.
A prisoner is not obliged to proceed with counsel, and he may litigate in both State and Federal courts pro se. However, no Virginia prisoner under sentence of death in contemporary times has ever been unrepresented during his trial, appeal or habeas corpus proceedings. Nor has any such prisoner faced execution without counsel.
58. A Commonwealth’s Attorney for each county in Virginia is elected every four years (Article VII(4) of the Constitution of Virginia). His primary duty is the prosecution of all criminal cases within his locality (see Virginia Code, section 15.1-18.1). He has discretion as to what degree of murder to present for indictment, but that discretion is limited by considerations of prosecutorial ethics and his legal duty under the general law and to the public to present the indictment for the crime which is best supported by the evidence. He is independent in the discharge of his duty, not being subject to direction in any relevant way, whether as to charging offences, seeking sentences or giving related assurances, by the Attorney General of Virginia (see Virginia Code, section 2.1-124), the Governor of Virginia or anyone else. It is open to the Commonwealth’s Attorney to engage in plea negotiations, but the court is not bound to accept any resultant agreement (Rule 3A.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia).
59. Judges of the district and higher courts of the State of Virginia are not elected but are appointed to the bench. Their conduct is governed by published Canons of Judicial Conduct, which have been adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia as Rules of the Supreme Court. Observance of high standards of conduct so as to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary is included as part of the first Canon.
60. The Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has an unrestricted power "to commute capital punishment" (Article V, section 12, of the Constitution of Virginia). As a matter of policy, the Governor does not promise, before a conviction and sentence, that he will later exercise his commutation power. Since 1977 there has been no case in which the Governor has commuted a death sentence.
61. There are currently 40 people under sentence of death in Virginia. The majority are detained in Mecklenburg Correctional Center, which is a modern maximum-security institution with a total capacity of 335 inmates. Institutional Operating Procedures (IOP 821.1) establish uniform operating procedures for the administration, security, control and delivery of necessary services to death row inmates in Mecklenburg. In addition conditions of confinement are governed by a comprehensive consent decree handed down by the United States District Court in Richmond in the case of Alan Brown et al. v. Allyn R. Sielaff et al. (5 April 1985). Both the Virginia Department of Corrections and the American Civil Liberties Union monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree. The United States District Court also retains jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the decree.
62. The channels by which grievances may be ventilated and, if well-founded, remedied include (1) the use of a Federal Court approved Inmate Grievance Procedure of the Virginia Department of Corrections, involving the Warden, the Regional Administrator and the Director of Prisons, and the Regional Ombudsman, (2) formal or informal contact between inmates’ counsel and the prison staff, (3) complaint to the courts for breach of the consent decree, and (4) the institution of legal proceedings under Federal or State tort laws.
63. The size of a death row inmate’s cell is 3m by 2.2m. Prisoners have an opportunity for approximately 7½ hours’ recreation per week in summer and approximately 6 hours’ per week, weather permitting, in winter. The death row area has two recreation yards, both of which are equipped with basketball courts and one of which is equipped with weights and weight benches. Inmates are also permitted to leave their cells on other occasions, such as to receive visits, to visit the law library or to attend the prison infirmary. In addition, death row inmates are given one hour out-of-cell time in the morning in a common area. Each death row inmate is eligible for work assignments, such as cleaning duties. When prisoners move around the prison they are handcuffed, with special shackles around the waist.
When not in their cells, death row inmates are housed in a common area called "the pod". The guards are not within this area and remain in a box outside. In the event of disturbance or inter-inmate assault, the guards are not allowed to intervene until instructed to do so by the ranking officer present.
64. The applicant adduced much evidence of extreme stress, psychological deterioration and risk of homosexual abuse and physical attack undergone by prisoners on death row, including Mecklenburg Correctional Center. This evidence was strongly contested by the United Kingdom Government on the basis of affidavits sworn by administrators from the Virginia Department of Corrections.
65. Death row inmates receive the same medical service as inmates in the general population. An infirmary equipped with adequate supplies, equipment and staff provides for 24-hour in-patient care, and emergency facilities are provided in each building. Mecklenburg also provides psychological and psychiatric services to death row inmates. The United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia) has recently upheld the adequacy of mental health treatment available to death row inmates in Mecklenburg (Stamper et al. v. Blair et al., decision of 14 July 1988).
66. Inmates are allowed non-contact visits in a visiting room on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays between 8.30am and 3.30pm. Attorneys have access to their clients during normal working hours on request as well as during the scheduled visiting hours. Death row inmates who have a record of good behaviour are eligible for contact visits with members of their immediate family two days per week. Outgoing correspondence from inmates is picked up daily and all incoming correspondence is delivered each evening.
67. As a security precaution, pursuant to rules applicable to all institutions in Virginia, routine searches are conducted of the entire institution on a quarterly basis. These searches may last for approximately a week. During such times, called lockdowns, inmates are confined to their cells; they are showered, receive medical, dental and psychological services outside their cells as deemed necessary by medical staff, and upon request may visit the law library, and are allowed legal visits and legal telephone calls. Other services such as meals are provided to the inmates in their cells. During the lockdown, privileges and out-of-cell time are gradually increased to return to normal operations.
Lockdowns may also be ordered from time to time in relation to death row if information is received indicating that certain of its inmates may be planning a disturbance, hostage situation or escape.
68. A death row prisoner is moved to the death house 15 days before he is due to be executed. The death house is next to the death chamber where the electric chair is situated. Whilst a prisoner is in the death house he is watched 24 hours a day. He is isolated and has no light in his cell. The lights outside are permanently lit. A prisoner who utilises the appeals process can be placed in the death house several times.
69. Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on matters concerning extradition are conducted by and with the Federal and not the State authorities. However, in respect of offences against State laws the Federal authorities have no legally binding power to provide, in an appropriate extradition case, an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. In such cases the power rests with the State. If a State does decide to give a promise in relation to the death penalty, the United States Government has the power to give an assurance to the extraditing Government that the State’s promise will be honoured.
According to evidence from the Virginia authorities, Virginia’s capital sentencing procedure and notably the provision on post-sentencing reports (see paragraph 47 above) would allow the sentencing judge to consider the representation to be made on behalf of the United Kingdom Government pursuant to the assurance given by the Attorney for Bedford County (see paragraph 20 above). In addition, it would be open to the Governor to take into account the wishes of the United Kingdom Government in any application for clemency (see paragraph 60 above).
70. There is no way of compelling American witnesses to give evidence at a trial in the Federal Republic of Germany. However, such witnesses would normally, unless imprisoned, be free to appear voluntarily before a German court and the German authorities would pay their expenses. Furthermore, a United States Federal court may, pursuant to a letter rogatory or a request from a foreign tribunal, order a person to give testimony or a statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign tribunal (28 United States Code, section 1782). In addition, public documents, for example the transcript of a criminal trial, are available to foreign prosecuting authorities.
71. German criminal law applies to acts committed abroad by a German national if the act is liable to punishment at the place where the offence is committed (Criminal Code, section 7(2)).
72. Murder is defined as follows in section 211(2) of the Criminal Code:
"He is deemed a murderer who because of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual instinct, for reasons of covetousness or for otherwise base motives, insidiously or cruelly or by means constituting a public danger or in order to render another crime possible or to conceal another crime kills a person."
Murder is punishable with life imprisonment (Criminal Code, section 211(1)), the death penalty having been abolished under the Constitution (Article 102 of the Basic Law, 1949).
73. Under the terms of the Juvenile Court Act (1953) as amended, if a young adult - defined as a person who is 18 but not yet 21 years of age at the time of the criminal act (section 1(3)) - commits an offence, the judge will apply the provisions applicable to a juvenile - defined as a person who is at least 14 but not yet 18 years of age (ibid.) - if, inter alia, "the overall assessment of the offender’s personality, having regard also to the circumstances of his environment, reveals that, according to his moral and mental development, he was still equal to a juvenile at the time of committing the offence" (section 105(1)). The sentence for young adults who come within this section is youth imprisonment of 6 months to 10 years or, under certain conditions, of indeterminate duration (sections 18, 19 and 105(3)).
Where, on the other hand, the young adult offender’s personal development corresponds to his age, the general criminal law applies but the judge may pass a sentence of 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment instead of a life sentence (section 106(1)).
74. Where an offender, at the time of commission of the offence, was incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of the offence or of acting in accordance with such appreciation by reason of a morbid mental or emotional disturbance, by reason of a profound disturbance of consciousness or by reason of mental deficiency or some other serious mental or emotional abnormality, there can be no culpability on his part and he may not be punished (Criminal Code, section 20). In such a case, however, it is possible for an order to be made placing the offender in a psychiatric hospital indefinitely (Criminal Code, section 63).
In a case of diminished responsibility, namely where there is substantial impairment of the offender’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the offence or to act in accordance with such appreciation at the time of commission of the offence for one of the reasons set out in section 20 (Criminal Code, section 21), punishment may be reduced and, in particular, in homicide cases imprisonment of not less than 3 years shall be substituted for life imprisonment (Criminal Code, section 49(1)(2)). Alternatively, the court may order placement in a psychiatric hospital.
75. Where a death sentence is risked, the Federal Government will grant extradition only if there is an unequivocal assurance by the requesting State that the death penalty will not be imposed or that it will not be carried out. The German-United States Extradition Treaty of 20 June 1978, in force since 29 August 1980, contains a provision (Article 12) corresponding, in its essentials, to Article IV of the United Kingdom/United States Extradition Treaty (see paragraph 36 above). The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany stated in evidence that they would not have deemed an assurance of the kind given by the United States Government in the present case to be adequate and would have refused extradition. In accordance with recent judicial decisions, the question whether an adequate assurance has been given is subject to examination in proceedings before the higher regional court.
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 13
6
NON_VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 6-3
NON_VIOLATED_BULLETPOINTS: 6-3-c