RESOLUTION DH (97) 507
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 27 MARCH 1996
IN THE CASE OF GOODWIN AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 October 1997
at the 605th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 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 Goodwin against the United Kingdom delivered on 27 March 1996 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 17488/90) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 September 1990 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr William Goodwin, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to a disclosure order requiring the applicant, a journalist, to disclose the identity of his source, and to a fine imposed upon him for having refused to do so;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 20 May 1994;
Whereas in its judgment of 27 March 1996 the Court:
_ held, by eleven votes to seven, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
_ held, unanimously, that the finding of the violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant;
_ held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 37 595.50 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses, less 9 300 French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment; that simple interest at an annual rate of 8 % should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, and dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction.
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 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 of 27 March 1996, having regard to the United Kingdom's obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 7 May 1996, within the time-limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 27 March 1996,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (97) 507
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the Goodwin case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government notes that the present judgment has received a wide coverage in the media and has been published in the Times Law Reports (28 March 1996), Current Law Monthly Digest [1996] 4 CL 324, European Human Rights Reports [1996] 22 EHRR 123 and Human Rights Case Digest [1996] HRCD Vol. VII, No. 6, p. 564. The Government is furthermore of the opinion that the English courts concerned will not fail to take the jurisprudence of the Court into account (see e.g. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind (House of Lords) [1991] 1 All ER 720 and R. v. Khan (The Times 5 July 1996)) when interpreting the national legislation at issue in order to avoid the problem posed in the Goodwin case.
The Government of the United Kingdom considers that the measure adopted will prevent the repetition of the kind of violation found in this case and that, therefore, the United Kingdom has fulfilled its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention.
As to the applicant's request to the Committee of Ministers that he be granted a pardon or similar measure, the Home Secretary has considered the request but concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend to Her Majesty an exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy since the finding of civil contempt of court does not amount to a criminal conviction and that therefore the applicant does not have a criminal record as a result of this finding.
Furthermore, it would be unprecedented to use this Royal prerogative to resolve civil litigations between two private parties. Finally, the applicant had not claimed compensation in respect of the fine before the European Court of Human Rights and no compensation was awarded on this count.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy