European Court of Human Rights

10 December 2008

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 19504/06
by Vincent LYNCH
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 17 April 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vincent Lynch, is a Jamaican national who was born in 1963. He is currently detained at HMP Full Sutton, York. He is represented before the Court by Ms Y. Aslan, a lawyer practising in Manchester.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was convicted on 13 March 1998 of murdering a man in a night club on 12 July 1997. He was also convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm with intent. The trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder, with a recommended minimum term of 17 years. For the two other offences he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 15 years and 7 years respectively, to run concurrently. The Lord Chief Justice subsequently recommended a minimum term of 17-18 years. In February 1999, the Secretary of State notified a minimum term of 20 years to the applicant.

Subsequent to the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the applicant applied in March 2004 for the setting of a minimum term of imprisonment in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 22 of the Act. In November 2006, the Courts Service, in answer to a letter from the applicant’s solicitor enquiring about the delay in dealing with the case, stated that in view of the great number of such applications pending before the High Court, priority was being given to cases in which the tariff would expire in 2010.

On 1 August 2008, the High Court (Mr Justice Grigson) rejected the applicant’s application. He concluded that the minimum period of 20 years notified by the Secretary of State could not be said to be manifestly excessive and so would not be reduced, apart from the period the applicant had spent in custody on remand (7 months and 15 days).

B.  Relevant domestic law

Following the Court’s judgment in the case of Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002 IV, 35 EHRR 32, Parliament adopted the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Schedule 22 of the Act sets out a procedure whereby a prisoner who received a mandatory life sentence before the date the Act entered into force (18 December 2003) may apply to the High Court for a review of the minimum period of imprisonment notified to him or her by the Secretary of State. The High Court may not extend the minimum period notified to the prisoner. It must give reasons for its decision, against which an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not completed within a reasonable time.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the criminal proceedings in the present case comply with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?