AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY
Application No. 11790/85
by Claude HARRISON
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
9 November 1987, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 17 September
1985 by Claude HARRISON against the United Kingdom and registered
on 10 October 1985 under file No. 11790/85;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1923 and is
resident in Bridlington, Yorkshire. The facts as submitted by the
applicant may be summarised as follows:
After taking advice from a local Member of Parliament (M.P.),
the applicant applied for and received a small business grant from the
district council in connection with a photographic studio which he set
up on the ground floor of his house. In or about June 1984, he asked a
local newspaper to give him publicity. After a visit by a journalist
to the studio, articles appeared in several local and national
newspapers insinuating that the council grant, obtained through the
good offices of an M.P., had been used to finance a pornographic
business. As a result, the applicant's reputation as a photographer
plummeted and families were discouraged from using his studios for
pictures of their children.
The applicant sought advice as to what remedies he could seek,
but was informed by the Law Society in a letter of 14 November 1984
that there would be no point in applying for legal aid in order to sue
the journalist or newspapers for defamation because such proceedings
are excluded from the English civil legal aid scheme.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that he is unable to take his defamation
complaint to the courts to obtain justice and to prove the innocence of
the press allegation, since the civil legal aid scheme does not extend
to defamation proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant has complained of a denial of access to court in
respect of defamation proceedings which he wished to pursue against a
local newspaper, because legal aid is not available in England for
such litigation.
The right of access to court in the determination of a civil
right, such as the right to enjoy a good reputation, is an inherent
guarantee of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which
provides for "a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and
impartial tribunal" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21
February 1975, Series A no. 18, paras. 26 and 36).
The Commission does not consider it necessary to decide
whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies and introduced
his application within the time-limit provided for in Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention, for it finds the application anyway
manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons:
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not guarantee a right to
free legal aid in civil cases. Moreover, the Commission has held that
"even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil
action ... given the limited financial resources of most civil legal
aid schemes, it is not unreasonable to exclude certain categories of
legal proceedings from this form of assistance. The fact that the
English legal aid scheme excludes assistance in defamation proceedings
has not been shown to be arbitrary" in certain cases (No. 10871/84,
Dec. 10.7.86 and No. 10594/83, Munro v. the United Kingdom, Dec.
14.7.87, both to be published in Decisions and Reports). The
Commission recognised in the said Munro case that "the nature of a
claim of defamation is such that it may easily be open to abuse. As a
result there is an objective risk that proceedings for defamation may
be unreasonably or abusively pursued. This is reflected in the common
practice of Member States of the Council of Europe to adopt special
procedures to guard against such abuses."
The question remains, however, whether apart from the legal
aid question, the present applicant has been denied effective access
to court. The Commission finds no evidence in the case file to
substantiate that this was so: The applicant appears to have made no
attempt to institute civil proceedings in person or, indeed, to obtain
preliminary legal advice as to the prospects of success of his claim.
In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that the
non-availability of legal aid for defamation proceedings in the
present case has not been shown to have deprived the applicant of
access to court, contrary to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)