At the trial of a substantive claim for declarations of property rights in the context of confiscation proceedings under the 1986 Act, two interested parties sought to dismissal or stay of the claims dismissed for delay. The proceedings went back to arrests and orders in 1993. Reliance was placed upon Article 6 of the ECHR.
Held: There had been two periods of unreasonable delay amounting to about 23 months in total. As to the consequences: ‘Has there been a breach of the reasonable time requirements? If the Court finds that there has been a breach of the reasonable time requirements:
‘it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.’
Mr. Turner contends for a stay of the present proceedings and asks me to lift the restraint orders.
In assessing whether there has been a breach of the reasonable time requirements I must consider the facts of the case, the conduct of the parties and the reason for any delay. These are proceedings brought by the State to enforce a criminal order made in criminal proceedings against the Defendant.
In Attorney General’s Reference (N0. 2 of 2001) [2004] 2 WLR 1 at paragraph 22, Lord Bingham stated ‘the Convention is directed not to departures from the ideal but to infringements of basic human rights, and the threshold of proving a breach of the reasonable time requirement is a high one, not easily exceeded. Judges should not be faced with applications based on lapses of time which, even if they should not have occurred, arouse no serious concern.
There can be no doubting that there has been a departure from the ideal in the present case. Mr Talbot acknowledges that fact but contends that in the context of the circumstances of this case as a whole this is not an excessively long period and it cannot properly be characterised as an infringement of basic human rights.’
The appropriate remedy for the breach of the Convention right was to make a public announcement of the fact of the breach. No more was required as a proportionate response, balancing the interests of the individuals and the community as a whole. The delay had not prejudiced the fair hearing of the substantive issues.
Judges:
Henriques J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 2013 (Admin)
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, Human Rights Act 1998
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) CACD 12-Jul-2001
When assessing whether the defendant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, the court should look as from the date at which he was charged, or served with a summons, and not from the date of the first interview. Although a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Foxley and others Admn 10-Dec-2007
In 1992, the claimant and members of his family were made subject to restraint orders after his conviction for corruption. They now applied for discharge of the orders claiming excessive delay. Nothing had moved forward since 1996, saying hey had in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261936
