European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gault v the United Kingdom - 1271/05 [2010] ECHR 986 (3 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/986.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 986

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)66¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Gault against the United Kingdom

(Application No. 1271/05, judgment of 20/11/07, final on 20/02/08)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the absence of reasons for maintaining the applicant on remand pending retrial, due to a refusal to grant bail (Article 5 paragraph 3) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)66

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Gault against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons given by the Court of Appeal to justify the applicant’s being kept on remand pending retrial (violation of Article 5§3).

The applicant’s request for release on bail was refused on the ground that she had been convicted of murder by a majority verdict and that a retrial would take place soon.

The European Court found that the question of the promptness of a retrial was not a relevant reason for refusing bail. There was no greater risk of the applicant absconding before the retrial and the prosecution had not objected to the applicant’s request to be released on bail.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	EUR 7 500	EUR 1 170	EUR 8 670
Paid on 04/04/2008

b) Individual measures

The applicant was acquitted and released from prison.

II. General measures

The grant of bail in Northern Ireland is governed by common law rather than statute. The courts have a degree of discretion on when to grant bail, but are obliged to have regard to certain considerations (the attitude of the prosecution being one of the factors to be taken into account).

Under Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Court’s judgment will influence the application of the common law provisions on bail in the Northern Ireland courts and in this context it is noted that judges and prosecutors have been made aware of the judgment. The United Kingdom authorities consider that this was an isolated violation resulting from the particular circumstances of the case.

The judgment was published in The Times on 28/11/2007 and the Bulletin of Northern Ireland Law (BNIL) 2007, Issue 9. It was sent to the Judicial Studies Board in Northern Ireland for the Board to bring to the direct attention of the judiciary and circulated to judges in Northern Ireland. It was also sent to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and brought to the attention of prosecutors in Northern Ireland.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation(s) of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.