In March 1991 Stephen Benham was committed to prison for 30 days by Poole magistrates as a result of failing to pay his poll tax (community charge).

He was not represented by a lawyer because legal aid is not available for representation in such proceedings in the magistrates' court and he could not afford one.

Even though the magistrates decided he had no money they took the view that they could imprison him on the grounds that he had given up his job and was still unemployed at the time of the hearing.He was fortunate though because a local solicitor was prepared to assist him to appeal by way of case stated to the High Court.

The solicitor appeared for him in the magistrates' court to request that he be granted bail pending the High Court case even though legal aid was not available for the bail application.

Bail was refused and a separate application for judicial review had to be launched to enable bail to be applied for in those proceedings.

Mr Benham was granted bail ten days later and eventually the High Court overturned the decision of the magistrates.Following a complaint by Liberty on behalf of Mr Benham the European Commission of Human Rights declared that the UK government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission decided that because Mr Benham had no right to compensation (the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 gave magistrates immunity from suit except where the court has acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause) there was a clear breach of art 5(5) of the convention.

Secondly, the Commission took the view that committal proceedings are, for the purposes of the convention, akin to a criminal charge and thus legal aid for representation needs to be available.The Commission's majorities in favour of both views were substantial and it is expected that the court will confirm the position of the Commission and thus, in future, the government will have to ensure that legal aid for representation and compensation for wrongful imprisonment are available.

I should add that in council tax cases (and under the old rates regime) the enforcement process is the same and there is a similar lack of compensation and legal aid.There are a number of issues that arise from this case.

The first and most fundamental one is whether it can continue to be right to imprison people for debt.

In fact, although imprisonment for contract debts has been abolished some debts, particularly those owed to the state like the poll tax, can still be enforced by imprisonment.I think many magistrates were confused about their role by the political campaign against the poll tax and the refusal of many thousands of people to pay the tax.

Unfortunately, this led to the lowest standards of justice that we have seen in the courts in this country for many years.

Evidence collected by Liberty at the time cle arly showed that magistrates from all over the country were ignoring the rules of natural justice and the niceties of evidence.

These practices led to the Court of Appeal having to reassert the right to a McKenzie friend and to the High Court having to rule on the lawfulness of particular kinds of evidence.

Many of those involved either with the anti-poll tax campaign or just with those who had difficulty in paying the bills saw our system of justice in action for the first time and were left with a very poor opinion of it.

Many of these people formed the view that the courts were merely rubber-stamping the decisions of local authorities and, ultimately, the political will of the government.One would have hoped that when there is a political clash that is focused on the courts, the courts themselves would have been eager to preserve their independence and to ensure that vulnerable people did not suffer in the political struggle.

I would have liked to think that this independence would have become clearer as the temperature of the conflict rose.

Although there were of course honourable exceptions amongst the courts and there were a number of lawyers who worked for no fees to preserve that independence, overall, it was a dismal showing.

Liberty complained about the quality of justice to the Lord Chancellor and the home secretary and also warned the Lord Chancellor about the Strasbourg challenge but this had no effect.What is also illustrated by this case is the absence of any real knowledge amongst the profession of proceedings under the convention.

Inevitably every time Liberty succeeds in a case in Strasbourg we are contacted by lawyers who have clients who might be affected, wanting to know how the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights works.

I do not understand why it is that lawyers are not able to advise, at least in general, on the Strasbourg route.

I am not suggesting that lawyers need to become expert in this area and we all have difficulty in keeping up with the law.

Of course, the absence of any decent system of legal aid for cases in Strasbourg is a factor but most lawyers rarely even remember that the convention exists.

Are human rights that unimportant?For those solicitors currently advising people who may have been wrongly imprisoned in the magistrates' court for failing to pay poll tax, council tax, a fine or maintenance, I would advise that an application should be made to Strasbourg to preserve their position on compensation pending the outcome of the court's decision and the government's response.

An application can be started merely by writing a letter to Strasbourg briefly setting out the details of the case.

Consideration should obviously also be given to taking advantage of the domestic remedies (especially if your client is still in prison) because unfortunately the Strasbourg procedures are very slow.