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 Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell delivered
on 25 October 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee
of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in three applications
against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission
of Human Rights on 3 June 1985, 1 September 1985 and
24 April 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mr Michael Keith Thynne, Mr Benjamin Wilson and Mr Edward James
Gunnell, British nationals, who complained of the absence under
United Kingdom law of a judicial procedure to determine the
continued lawfulness of their detention pursuant to a
discretionary life sentence or in the case of the two last
applicants their re-detention following release on licence;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 12 October 1989;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 October 1990 the Court:
- held, by eighteen votes to one, that there had been a
violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the
Convention in the case of all three applicants;
- held, by eighteen votes to one, that there had been a
violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), in the
case of Mr Wilson;
- held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to
the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, the
sums resulting from the calculations to be made in
accordance with paragraph 87 of the judgment;
- 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 (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 of 25 October 1990, having regard to its obligation
under Article 53 (art. 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 the Government of the United
Kingdom has paid to the applicants the sums provided for in the
judgment,
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 (art. 54) of the
Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH(92)24
Information provided by the Government of
the United Kingdom during the examination
of the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell
by the Committee of Ministers
The Criminal Justice Act 1967 was amended by the Criminal
Justice Act 1991 which will be brought into force as from
October 1992. Under Section 34 of the 1991 Act, a discretionary
life prisoner will henceforth be able to require the Secretary
of State to refer his case to the Parole Board at any time after
he has served the relevant part of his sentence as specified by
the sentencing court and, where there has been a previous
reference of his case to the board, after the end of a period of
two years beginning with the disposal of that reference. If the
Parole Board directs the release of a discretionary life
prisoner, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State
to release him. Under Section 39 of the act the Secretary of
State will also be obliged to order the immediate release of a
person whose release on licence was revoked and who was recalled
to prison, if the Parole Board so directs.
According to Section 32 (5), the Secretary of State may make
rules with respect to the proceedings of the Parole Board. It
is intended that provision will be made in such rules for oral
hearings before the Parole Board and for the disclosure to
discretionary life prisoners of adverse material which the board
has in its possession, both in respect of prisoners where the
relevant part of their sentence has expired and whose cases are
referred to the board under Section 34 and in respect of such
prisoners who have been recalled after release on licence and
whose cases are referred to the board under Section 39. These
rules will be brought into force with the relevant provisions of
the 1991 act, in October 1992.
In view of the above the Government of the United Kingdom
considers that it has taken the measures required as a result of
the finding of a violation by the Court of Article 5,
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention.
The Government of the United Kingdom considers that,
provided the national law complies with the states' obligations
under Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 4 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3,
art. 5-4), of the Convention, no question of a "right to
compensation" arises since Article 5, paragraph 5
(art. 5-5), does not require in itself that paragraphs 1 to 4 of
Article 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4) be
incorporated into domestic law. As the Government of the United
Kingdom is not incorporating the Convention as such into British
law, and is not obliged to do so, it follows that there is no
basis on which it could legislate for Article 5, paragraph 5
(art. 5-5), of the Convention.
The costs and expenses of Mr Thynne (£ 3 707,58) were paid
on 7 November 1990. The costs and expenses of
Messrs. Wilson and Gunnell (£ 17 923,87) were paid
on 28 November 1990.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy