European Court of Human Rights
Published November 28, 2007
Gault v United Kingdom (Application No 1271/05)
Before J. Casadevall, President, and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, K. Traja, S. Pavlovschi, P. Hirvelä and L. Garlicki Section Registrar T. L. Early
Judgment November 20, 2007

The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland was in breach of the European Conventiuon of Human Rights in refusing bail, when the prosecution did not object, to a mother of triplets pending retrial on a charge of murder.

The applicant, Lesley Ann Gault, was born in 1967 and lived in Lisburn, Northern Ireland.

On May 19, 2000, her husband was murdered. Ms Gault was subsequently charged with aiding and abetting her former lover, Mr G, in the murder. She was released on bail pending trial and remained at home with her triplets who were aged six at the time.

Ms Gault remained on bail throughout the first and second trials. On November 20, 2002, following the first trial, Mr G was convicted of murder but the jury failed to agree on a verdict concerning the applicant.

On March 20, 2003, following the second trial, Ms Gault was convicted of murder by a majority verdict and imprisoned for life. The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland subsequently quashed that conviction and ordered a retrial.

The applicant made a request for bail; the prosecution did not object. However, on July 9, 2004, that request was refused on the ground that she had been convicted of murder by a majority verdict and that the retrial would take place soon.

She remained in custody until September 6, 2004, when she was granted bail by the third trial judge. She was acquitted in October 2004.

The European Court of Human Rights held: Relying on article 5.3, the right to liberty and security, and article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, Ms Gault complained of the decision to place her in detention on remand from July 9 to September 6, 2004, pending her third trial.

The Court noted that there was a lack of clarity as to what the reasons had been for detaining Ms Gault. Nevertheless, it examined such reasons as could be discerned from the material available.

The Court recalled that the matter of the promptness of a retrial was not a relevant reason for refusing bail: article 5.3 did not give judicial authorities a choice between bringing an accused person to trial within a reasonable time and granting that person provisional release pending trial: see McKay v United Kingdom (The Times October 30, 2006).

It was not persuaded either by the Government having inferred that there had been a greater risk of the applicant absconding before the third trial because of the decision of March 2003.

Indeed, it was significant that the prosecution had made no objections to the applicant’s request to be released on bail pending the third trial.

The Court therefore concluded that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for placing Ms Gault in detention on remand pending the third trial could not be considered relevant and sufficient and held unanimously that there had been a violation of article 5.3.

Given that finding, the Court further held that no separate issue arose under article 8.

Ms Gault was awarded €7,500 in respect of nonpecuniary damage and €2,020 for costs and expenses, less €850 already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones