The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54)
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in
the case of Campbell and Fell delivered on 28 June 1984 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case had its origin in two applications against the
United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights by
Mr John Joseph Campbell and Father Patrick Fell, both United Kingdom
citizens, under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention, alleging that
they had been convicted by the Board of Visitors of disciplinary
charges amounting in substance to "criminal" charges, without having
been afforded a hearing complying with the requirements of Article 6
(art. 6) of the convention contending that the delay in allowing them
to obtain legal advice following the incident of 16 September 1976
involved breaches of their right of access to court, guaranteed by
Article 6 (art. 6), and of their right to respect for correspondence,
guaranteed by Article 8 (art. 8), maintaining that the refusal to
allow independent medical examination involved a further infringement
of their rights under Article 6 (art. 6);
Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the
European Commission of Human Rights;
Whereas, in its judgment of 28 June 1984, the Court:
I. Preliminary
1. Rejects unanimously the Government's plea that Mr Campbell failed
to exhaust domestic remedies;
2. Holds unanimously that it has no jurisdiction to examine Father
Fell's submission that his complaints concerning the Board of
Visitors' proceedings are now admissible;
II. As regards the Board of Visitors' proceedings in the case of
Mr Campbell
3. Holds by four votes to three that Article 6 (art. 6) of the
convention was applicable thereto;
4. Holds by four votes to three that there has not been a breach of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), by reason of the fact that the
Board did not conduct its adjudication in public;
5. Holds by five votes to two that there has been a breach of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), in that the Board did not make
public its decision;
6. Holds by five votes to two that Mr Campbell's inability to obtain
legal assistance or legal representation constituted a violation of
sub-paragraphs b and c, respectively, of Article 6, paragraph 3
(art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c);
7. Holds unanimously that on the other points at issue there has been
no violation of Article 6 (art. 6);
III. As regards the applicants' access to legal advice in connection
with their personal injuries claim
8. Holds unanimously that there have been breaches of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), and Article 8 (art. 8);
IV. As regards the conditions for visits to Father Fell by his
solicitors
9. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), and that it is not necessary also to examine
this matter under Article 8 (art. 8);
V. As regards the restrictions on Father Fell's personal
correspondence
10. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 8
(art. 8);
VI. As regards Article 13 (art. 13)
11. Holds unanimously that there has been a breach of this article
(art. 13) to the extent specified in paragraph 128 of the judgment;
VII. As regards the application of Article 50 (art. 50)
12. Holds unanimously that the United Kingdom is to pay to the
applicants, in respect of legal costs and expenses, the sum of
thirteen thousand pounds sterling (£13 000), together with any value
added tax that may be due;
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54
(art. 54) of the convention";
Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of
the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment,
having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the
convention to abide by the judgment;
Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee
of Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment,
which information is summarised in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United Kingdom has
paid the applicants the sum provided for in the judgment of the Court
of 28 June 1984,
Declares, after taking note of the information supplied by the
Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its function
under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (86) 7
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom during
the examination of the case of Campbell and Fell before the Committee
of Ministers
In paragraph 104 of its judgment, when dealing with the violations of
Articles 6, 8 and 13 (art. 6, art. 8, art. 13), the European Court of
Human Rights held that it could not examine the compatibility of the
modified law and practice with the convention, but noted that, in
particular with effect from December 1981, substantial changes had
been made in this area by the United Kingdom with a view to ensuring
the observance of the engagements undertaken by it in the convention.
In paragraph 141, when dealing with the violations of Article 8
(art. 8) and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 13+8), the Court again noted that substantial changes had been
introduced in the correspondence control regime since 1981 which did
appear in principle to have led to a significant improvement.
Changes have also been made in the United Kingdom in the practice
relating to prison disciplinary tribunals. There is now a right to
publicly-funded legal representation before these tribunals in similar
cases to those with which the Court was concerned in the case of
Campbell and Fell. In such cases, steps will be taken to publicise
the tribunal's decision. These changes were made by means of a letter
from the Prison Department to chairmen of Boards of Visitors, copied
to prison governors, dated 12 July 1984.
The Government of the United Kingdom has paid to the applicants the
sums ordered to be paid by way of costs and expenses in the Court's
judgment of 28 June 1984.