European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> William DURHAM v the United Kingdom - 6387/04 [2008] ECHR 371 (27 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/371.html
Cite as: [2008] ECHR 371
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
6387/04
by William DURHAM
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr William Durham, is a British national who was born in 1934 and lives in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 August 2003, the applicant, owner of a van, received a notice from the police stating that his vehicle had been photographed speeding at 50 miles per hour in a restricted zone on 10 August 2003. He was asked to name the driver.
A final reminder was sent to him on 19 September 2003 allowing him a further fourteen days to provide the required information, failing which he would be prosecuted for the additional offence of failing to give the name and address of the driver, contrary to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
He replied stating that he did not know who the driver was and that he did not believe it was his van in the photograph.
On 17 January 2004, the applicant received two summonses to appear before the Magistrates’ Court, one stating that he was the driver of the van and the second that he had failed to give information as to the driver of the vehicle.
On 24 March 2004, the Magistrates’ Court acquitted the applicant of being the driver of the vehicle alleged to have been exceeding the speed limit. It convicted him of failure to give information about the driver. He was fined GBP 220, with his licence to be endorsed with three penalty points.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, §§ 25 31, ECHR 2007 ...
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that he had been subject to compulsion to give incriminating evidence in violation of the right to remain silent and the privilege against self incrimination. He also complained under Article 6 § 3(a) that it took over five months to inform him that he was guilty of an offence. Finally he complained he was prevented by the clerk of the Magistrates’ Court from putting questions to the police officers as to when he was first asked about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3(a) of the Convention provide, so far as relevant, as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him”
THE LAW
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The Government
The Government submitted that the present case was indistinguishable from the case of O’Halloran and Francis, cited above, in particular the facts of Francis, where the applicant was convicted for failure to comply with the section 172 demand.
2. The applicant
The applicant expressed his disagreement with the O’Halloran and Francis judgment and his agreement with the dissenting opinion of Judge Pavlovschi in that case. He also submitted that there had been a more general infringement of Article 6 of the Convention in his case than was considered by the Court in O’Halloran and Francis.
B. The Court’s assessment
The Court will first examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. It notes that it has previously examined cases raising issues similar to those in the present case in O’Halloran and Francis, cited above, where it found there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that no separate issue arose to be considered under Article 6 § 2.
The Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts or arguments from the applicant which would lead to any different conclusion in this instance. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 3(a) of the Convention that it took over five months to inform him that he was guilty of an offence, the Court observes that complaints in relation to the length of criminal proceedings are more appropriately examined under Article 6 § 1. The Court notes that the applicant was given the notice of intention to prosecute on 13 August 2003 and a reminder on 19 September 2003. He was summoned to appear before the Magistrates’ Court on 17 January 2004 and convicted on 24 March 2004. In the circumstances of the case, the Court therefore considers that the proceedings were pursued with the diligence required by Article 6 § 1. It follows that this part of the application must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Finally, having examined the applicant’s complaint as to the fairness of the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court, the Court finds that there is nothing in the case file which discloses an appearance of a violation of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention and this complaint must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President