THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application nos. 29047/95 and others
by Jerry BAKER and Others
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 September 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights and registered on dates as indicated in the annex to this decision,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are United Kingdom nationals. Twenty one of them were represented before the Court by HMB solicitors, practising in Stoke on Trent. Mr Perry was represented by Ms D. Still, a solicitor practising in Rochdale. The remaining four applicants were represented by Ms A. Whitworth, a solicitor practising in Gloucester.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of a community charge (poll tax). At the time, most of the applicants were dependent on State benefits or living on a low income. In separate proceedings in magistrates’ courts it was established that the non-payment was due to the debtor’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Each of the applicants was thereupon committed to a term of imprisonment. Legal aid was not available and the applicants were not legally represented before the magistrates’ courts. Following judicial review proceedings most of the applicants obtained orders quashing the magistrates’ imprisonment decisions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their imprisonment was unlawful and under Article 6 of the Convention that legal aid was not available to them in the proceedings before the magistrates’ courts.
PROCEDURE
The applications were introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on the dates indicated in the annex to this decision. On different dates in 1997 the Commission decided to give notice to the respondent Government of the applications without inviting them to submit written observations until the adoption of reports or decisions in a group of similar cases. The Commission did not take further action until 1 November 1998. On that date pursuant to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol no. 11 to the Convention the applications fell to be examined by the Court. They were assigned to the Third Section.
On 12 October 1999 the Court delivered judgment in the case of Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom (25277/94 et al.), which concerned part of a group of similar cases, pending the resolution of which the present applications under consideration were adjourned.
By letter of 15 December 1999 the Court invited the applicants to state whether or not, having regard to the Perks and Others judgment, they wished to pursue their applications.
None of the applicants replied to the Court’s letter. A letter dated 16 February 2000 from HMB solicitors only requested the complete list of the “poll tax” applications pending before the Court.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similarities in the applications, the Court considers it appropriate to join them, in accordance with Rule 43 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; … .”
Having regard to the correspondence with the applicants, the Court finds that they do not intend to pursue their applications within the meaning of the above Article.
The Court also notes that it has expressed its opinion on complaints almost identical to those raised by the applicants (see the Benham v. the United Kingdom judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 738, and the Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 12 October 1999, to be published in Reports 1999). The Court finds, therefore, no reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which require the further examination of the present applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO JOIN the applications;
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
A N N E X
LIST OF APPLICATIONS
Appl. no.Name of appl.Introduction dateRegistration date
29047/95Jerry Baker3 October 19952 November 1995
29048/95Barry Pike3 October 19952 November 1995
29049/95Rodney Spanswick3 October 19952 November 1995
29050/95Sean Traves3 October 19952 November 1995
29304/95Jane Count3 October 19952 November 1995
30068/96Patrick Lynn3 October 19955 February 1996
30396/96John Perry16 February 19966 March 1996
30477/96Mary Hargreaves10 January 199618 March 1996
30986/96Michael Foston10 January 199611 April 1996
30987/96Andrea Louise Houson10 January 199611 April 1996
30988/96Tracey Buffong28 March 199611 April 1996
31722/96John Johnson10 January 19964 June 1996
31723/96Brian Winstanley17 April 19964 June 1996
32398/96Karen Hannis18 June 199624 July 1996
32399/96Altamont Wallace17 June 199624 July 1996
32401/96Stuart Daniel Martin5 January 199624 July 1996
32406/96Amanda Helen Walker26 January 199624 July 1996
32848/96Richard Mighton16 August 19963 September 1996
32850/96Michael Bush16 August 19963 September 1996
33474/96Mervyn Bold21 February 199617 October 1996
34144/96Willi Abel24 September 199612 December 1996
34145/96Michelle Nimrod24 September 199612 December 1996
34146/96Joseph Smithy24 September 199612 December 1996
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy