The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention
relating to the applications lodged by Mr Edward Byrne,
Mr Cornelius McFadden, Mr John McCluskey and Mr Liam McLarnon against
the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 7879/77, 7931/77, 7935/77 and
7936/77);
Whereas on 28 January 1986 the Commission transmitted the said report
to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention
has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
convention;
Whereas in their applications lodged between 1 April and 23 May 1977
the applicants complained of a hindrance of their right of access to
court, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the
convention, and of an unjustified interference with their right to
respect for private life, ensured by Article 8 (art. 8) of the
convention, the first applicant also complaining of an unjustified
interference with his right to respect for correspondence, ensured by
Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible on
6 March 1985 and, after having decided on 12 October 1985 to join
them, in its report adopted on 3 December 1985 expressed the opinion
by a unanimous vote, that the interference with the first applicant's
correspondence to his solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8
and 6, paragraph 1 (art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention, by a vote of
twelve to one that no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of
the convention arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant
facilities for an independent medical examination, and, by a unanimous
vote, that the prevention of the applicants' confidential
consultations with their solicitors was in breach of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;
Having examined the proposals made by the Commission in accordance
with Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention;
Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Government of the
United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers:
i. that it accepted the opinion expressed by the Commission in its
report, as well as the proposals made under Article 31, paragraph 3
(art. 31-3), of the convention,
ii. that following the decision of the Divisional Court in R v.
Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson (1984)
1ALL ER920, the simultaneous ventilation rule was disapplied from
correspondence with legal advisers in relation to proposed legal
proceedings,
iii. that the revised Standing Order No. 5 provided that visits with a
legal adviser acting in his professional capacity should be allowed
out of hearing of prison officers provided that the subject to be
discussed was disclosed to the Governor beforehand,
iv. that, however, following the decision in Anderson's case, it was
now no longer necessary that the subject to be discussed be disclosed
in advance,
v. that the sum of £4 322.50 for the applicants' legal costs was paid
to the applicants' legal representatives;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention,
a. Decides that:
i. the interference with the first applicant's correspondence to his
solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8 and 6, paragraph 1
(art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention;
ii. no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention
arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant facilities for an
independent medical examination;
iii. the prevention of the applicants' confidential consultations with
solicitors was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the
convention;
b. Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the
Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for
in this case.