| X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 5871/ 72 X . v/the UNITED KINGDOM X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 30 September 1974 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 30 septembre 1974 sur la recevabilité de la requi't e
Article B, peragreph 1, of the Convention : The principle of "equality of arms" is complied with in criminal matters when the Court of Appeal considers an application for leave to appeal in the absence of both the prosecution and the applicant . Article 6 paragraph 3 cl, of the Convention : Duty of the courts (Court of Appeaq to give proper consideration to the question whether the interests of justice require the granting of legal aid. Article 3 of the Convention : The sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed on the applicant does not fall within the ambit of Article 3. No article of the Convention provides a general right to question the length of a sentence. Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : L'rr égalité des armes », en matiére pénate, est respectée lorsque la cour d'appel examine une demande en autorisation d'appeler hors la présence tant du ministére public que du demandeur. Article 6, paragraphe 3 cl, de la Convention : Devoir des tribunaux (cour d'appel) de s'essurer si les intérêts de la justice exigent l'octroi de l'assistance judiciaire . Article 3 de la Convention : La peine de quatre ans d'emprisonnement imposée au requérant, n'entre pas dans le champ d'application de l'article 3. Aucune disposition de la Convention ne permet, d'une manière générale, d'attaquer la durée d'une peine .
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ( françeis : voir p. 55) Sentenced to four years' imprisonment for arson . Application for leave to appeal refused by a single judge . Application renewed before the full Court of Appeaf, together with an application for legal aid. Both applications refused .
THE LAW (Extract ) 2 . The applicant has (also) complained that he was not allowed to be present when the Court of Appeal considered his applications for .leave to appeal . The Commission has considered this complaint in the light of Art . 6 of the Convention and recalls that it has considered similar complaints by applicants in previous cases (see : application No . 3104/67, Y . v . the United Kingdom ; application No . 3168/67, Z . v . the United Kingdom ; and application No . 3075/67, Yearbook 11, p . 466) and has concluded that the "fair hearing" to be granted to an accused person within the meaning of Art . 6(1 ) requires respect for the principle of "equality of arms" as between the prosecution and the defence . However, although the applicant was not present or represented in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, it does not appear that the prosecution was represented in these proceedings either and there is accordingly noappearance of a violation of the principle of equality of arms . It follows that this part of the application is also manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . The applir-ant has also complained that he was refused legal aid for the proceeding s .3 before the Court of Appeal . The Commission has considered this complaint in the light of
-54-
Art . 6 13) Ic) of the Convention which provides that an accused person with insufficient means to pay for legal assistance has the right to be given it free when the interests of justice so require . There is, however, no indication from the application as it has been submitted that, in refusing the applicant legal aid, the court did not give proper consideration to the question whether the interests of justice required that he should be granted it . It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . 4 . In addition to his complaints about the court proceedings the applicant appears also to complain that the term of imprisonment imposed on him was too long . However under Art . 25 (1) of the Convention, it is only the alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention that can be the subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals . There is no indication that the sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed on the applicant could possibly fall within the ambit of Art . 3 of the Convention which prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the applicant does not allege that it does so . Moreover the Convention does not provide as such any general right to call into question the length of a sentence imposed by a competent court . It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione meteriae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . Résumé des faits Condamné A quatre ans d'emprisonnement pour incendie volontaire . Demande en autorisation d'appeler rejetée par un juge unique . Demande renouvelée devant la cour d'appel pléniére, en même temps qu'une demande d'essistance judiciaire en appe% Rejet de l'une et de l'autre . Résumé des considérants pertinents 2 . Le requérant se plaint de n'avoir pu comparaitre devant la cour d'eppel%rsque celle-ci a examiné se demande en autorisation d'appeler . La Commission rappelle que la notion de procés équitable, au sens de l'article 6 paragraphe 1, de la Convention inclut le principe de l'rr égalité des armes u (Rappel de jurisprudence) . En /'espéce, ce principe a été respecté car le ministére public n'était pas représenté, lui non plus, devant le cour d'appel. Grief manifestement mal fondé. 3. Le requérant se plaint de s'être vu refuser l'assistance judiciaire pour procéder devant la cour d'appel. Examen par le Commission sous l'angle de l'article 6, paragraphe 3 cl, de la Convention . Rien n'indique toutefois que la cour ait négligé de s éssurer que les intérêts de /a justice n'exigeaient pas l'octroi de l'assistance judiciaire . Grief manifestement mal fondé . 4 . Le requérent se plaint que la durée de la peine A lui infligée était excessive . Aux yeux de le Commission, rien ne permet de penser que cette peine, de quatre ans d'emprisonnement, constituerait une mesure è laquelle pourrait s éppliquer l'article 3 de la Convention. D'aut re part, aucune disposition de la Convention ne permet, d'une meniére générale, d'attaquer la durée d'une peine prononcée par un tribunal compétent. Grief incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention .
- 55 -