Takahashi SHIMIDZU and Andrew Ivan BERLLAQUE v the United Kingdom

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Application no. 648/06
by Takahashi SHIMIDZU and Andrew Ivan BERLLAQUE
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 23 December 2005

The applicants are Mr Takahashi Shimidzu and Mr Andrew Ivan Berllaque. Mr Shimidzu is a British national. He was born in 1982. Mr Berllaque is a British national and his date of birth has not been provided. The applicants live in Gibraltar. Mr Shimidzu is represented before the Court by Mr D Hughes, a barrister practising in Cardiff; Mr Berllaque by Mr S Bossino, a barrister practising in Gibraltar.

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

On 1 - 3 April 2003, the first applicant, Mr Shimidzu, was tried before a judge and jury in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar on charges of assault occasioning bodily harm, obstructing a police officer and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. He was acquitted by the jury after a submission of no case to answer was rejected by the trial judge. When Mr Shimidzu's counsel made application for costs after the trial, the Chief Justice said:

“But, Mr Hughes, you know that you can't get costs. I would grant them, if I could, you know that the law is against you.”

“You keep trying, Mr Hughes, I understand why you keep trying, but in my opinion it is an unjust system, which says, you can award costs against the defendant on conviction, you cannot award costs in the Supreme Court on acquittal. It is not a just system, but it's not something that I can get round, however much I would enjoy trying to weave it. I just cannot, and it is a matter for the Legislature, but it is a matter perhaps that the Legislature ought to be invited to give their attention to.”

On 13 – 16 October 2003, the second applicant, Mr Berllaque, was tried before the same court on charges of rape. At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the trial judge upheld a defence submission of no case to answer and, on his direction, the jury acquitted the second applicant.

Mr Shimidzu made a motion to challenge the refusal to award costs. This was referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar on 30 September 2003.

Mr Bellarque was given leave to intervene in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in Mr Shimidzu's case. Before the Court of Appeal, the applicants argued, inter alia, that the relevant provision of Gibraltarian criminal law, section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, violated the Gibraltar Constitution. They relied on sections 1 and 8 of the Constitution. In respect of section 8, they argued that section 232 violated their right to a fair hearing and was a violation of the presumption of innocence. It appears that it was accepted before the Court of Appeal that while section 232 (2) allowed the Supreme Court to order the prosecution to pay costs to an acquitted defendant, all defendants before the Supreme Court would be unable to fulfil the conditions laid down in section 232 (2) since in order for a person to be committed for trial they would have to be detained in custody or bound by recognizance (see section 232 (2) (a) below). The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the applicant's submissions in respect of the presumption of innocence and the prohibition on discrimination contained in section 1. By a majority, it found that section 232 violated the right to a fair hearing contained in section 8.

The Attorney-General for Gibraltar appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. On 28 June 2005, the Privy Council allowed the appeal, holding that section 232, while unattractive and lacking even-handedness, did not violate the Constitution. This unattractiveness was relieved by the fact that subsection (1) of the section, allowing the prosecution to claim costs from a convicted defendant, was a dead letter. The Privy Council, relying on this Court's rulings in Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327 A, §§ 48-49 and Lutz v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, § 59, found that Article 6 of the Convention did not require a discretion to award costs to an acquitted defendant. While an even-handed discretionary power to order reimbursement of costs incurred by a successful prosecutor or a successful defendant would be desirable, it was not correct to find, as the Court of Appeal had, that such a power was universal among Western European countries. The principle of equality of arms sought to ensure that a defendant did not suffer an unfair procedural disadvantage but did not require that the situations of the prosecutor and defendant should be assimilated and neither applicant had been able to show any procedural disadvantage in the conduct of the trial from the inability to recover his costs. In respect of the presumption of innocence (and referring to this Court's findings in Lutz, cited above; Leutscher v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II; and Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), the Privy Council found that where the domestic court had a discretion to order costs against a prosecutor in favour of an acquitted defendant, the court should not refuse to make such an order in terms which throw doubt on the presumption of innocence. However, where domestic law granted no discretion and did not permit the making of an order, the failure to make such an order could not be rationally understood as throwing doubt on the defendant's innocence.

“It is hereby recognised and declared that in Gibraltar there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, each and all of the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely―

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law; ...

...and the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of affording protection to the said rights and freedoms subject to such limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.”

Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, insofar as they are relevant, provides as follows:

8 (1) If any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charge is withdrawn, the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.

(d) shall be permitted to defend himself in person or, at his own expense, by a legal representative of his own choice or, where so prescribed, by a legal representative provided at the public expense...”

Part XI of the Ordinance governs costs and other ancillary orders in criminal cases.

Section 229, governing the award of costs by Magistrates' Courts, so far as it is relevant, provides:

“(1) On the summary trial of an information the magistrates' court shall have power to make such order as to costs ―

(b) on dismissal of the information, to be paid by the prosecutor to the defendant, as it thinks just and reasonable:

(i) where under the conviction the court orders payment of any sum as a fine, penalty, forfeiture or compensation, and the sum so ordered to be paid does not exceed £1, the court shall not order the defendant to pay any costs under this subsection unless in any particular case it thinks fit to do so;

(ii) and where the defendant is a child or young person, the amount of the costs ordered to be paid by the defendant himself under this subsection shall not exceed the amount of any fine ordered to be so paid.

(2) The court shall specify in the conviction, or, as the case may be, the order of dismissal, the amount of any costs that it orders to be paid under subsection (1).

(3) Where examining justices determine not to commit the accused for trial on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to put him upon his trial, and are of opinion that the charge was not made in good faith, they may order the prosecutor to pay the whole or any part of the costs incurred in or about the defence.”

“(1) The Supreme Court may, if it thinks fit, order any person convicted before it to pay the whole or any part of the costs incurred in or about the prosecution and conviction, including any proceedings before the examining justices.

(a) he has not been committed to or detained in custody or bound by recognizance to answer the indictment; or

(c) the indictment is by a private prosecutor for the publication of a defamatory libel or for any corrupt practice within the meaning of the House of Assembly Ordinance,

the Supreme Court may order the prosecutor to pay the whole or any part of the costs incurred in or about the defence, including any proceedings before the examining justices.

The applicants complain firstly under Article 6 of the Convention that the prohibition on the Supreme Court of Gibraltar awarding costs in their favour, in circumstances where the same court has the power to grant costs in favour of the prosecution, is a violation of their right to a fair trial.

Secondly, they complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their obligation to pay their own costs had pecuniary consequences for them since given the nature of the charges against them they had no choice but to use qualified legal representatives. They submit that this is a disproportionate interference with their rights under this Article.

Thirdly, they complain of a violation of Article 14 when taken with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this respect, they submit that there is an unjustified difference in treatment between the prosecution and the defence. They further submit that there is also an unjustified difference in treatment between defendants in Magistrates' Courts (who can recover their costs when acquitted) and defendants tried on indictment in the Supreme Court.

(1) Do the facts of the case fall within the ambit of Article 6? If so, is Article 14 applicable?

(2) Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 6? In particular what is the objective and reasonable justification for the alleged difference in treatment?

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Takahashi SHIMIDZU and Andrew Ivan BERLLAQUE v the United Kingdom - 648/06 [2007] ECHR 970 (23 October 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/970.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 970

European Court of Human Rights