Application No. 27239/95
by Andrew EVANS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 15 March 1995 by
Andrew EVANS against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 May 1995
under file No. 27239/95;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
13 January 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 4 February 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1955. He is
represented before the Commission by Ms. Kate Akester, a solicitor
working for Justice in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant
may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was convicted of murder in April 1973 at the age
of seventeen. He was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's
pleasure.
By letter of 15 November 1994, after serving twenty two years of
imprisonment, the Secretary of State informed the applicant that the
trial judge when consulted in 1982 as to the tariff (the period to be
served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) had
made no recommendation. The Lord Chief Justice had written that: "there
is no reason on grounds of punishment why this man should not be
released after 12 1/2 years." The Secretary of State at that time
however had concluded that the case warranted a higher tariff than that
suggested by the Lord Chief Justice and set the tariff at 20 years with
a first review in October 1989 at the 17 year point. In 1987, the
Secretary of State had agreed that the review should be brought forward
to January 1988. The letter concluded by informing the applicant that
his tariff had now expired and that whether or not he would be released
would depend on a favourable recommendation by the Parole Board and the
exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion, taking into account
how society would view the prisoner's release at that time.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction
out of time. This was granted. On 3 December 1997, the Court of Appeal
allowed his appeal. It found that the conviction had rested entirely
on his confessions to the police and that as these were entirely
unreliable, the conviction was unsafe and should be quashed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that he had never had the opportunity
of obtaining a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention by
a body complying with the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 of the
Convention, in particular in that he was denied an oral hearing on the
expiry of his tariff. He also complained of the increase in his tariff
by the Secretary of State, a member of the Executive rather than the
judiciary, and of being denied the opportunity to make representations
as to his tariff.
The applicant also invoked Article 5 para. 5 in relation to the
absence of any effective right to compensation.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 15 March 1995 and registered
on 4 May 1995.
On 26 June 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to
communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to
Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to invite them to
submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
application.
On 5 November 1996, the Government submitted observations on the
admissibility and merits and on 23 December 1996, the applicant
submitted his observations in reply.
By letter dated 25 February 1997, the Government provided further
information relating to the applicant's review.
On 13 January 1998, the Government informed the Commission that
the applicant's conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on
3 December 1997 whereupon the applicant was immediately released from
prison, and requested the Commission to strike the application out of
its list of cases.
By letter dated 4 February 1998, the applicant confirmed that he
had been released, that he qualified for compensation and stated that
he wished to withdraw his application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that on 3 December 1997 the applicant's
conviction was quashed and that he was released from prison. In light
of these events, the applicant, who is eligible for compensation under
domestic law, has stated that he does not wish to proceed with his
application.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the matter
which has been the subject of the application has been resolved within
the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. The
Commission, furthermore, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 in fine,
finds no special circumstances regarding respect of human rights as
defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the
examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy