AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 32338/96
by Jonathan P. HODGETTS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 10 September 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
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 20 December 1995
by Jonathan P. HODGETTS against the United Kingdom and registered on
22 July 1996 under file No. 32338/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1957 and resident in
Cornwall. The facts, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a college lecturer specialising in special
educational needs. Between 1 September 1989 and 31 March 1992 the
applicant was a tutor/organiser for Cornwall Adult Basic Education.
The applicant was made redundant on 31 March 1992.
On 10 June 1992 the applicant was informed by police officers
that he should attend at Penzance Police Station to answer questions
relating to allegations of sexual abuse made by a former student. No
further clarification was given.
On 11 June 1992 the applicant instructed solicitors. He told
them that he had not done anything which could give rise to such
allegations. On 15 June 1992 he was interviewed by police officers of
the Child Protection Team at Penzance Police Station. The applicant
was informed prior to the interview that an allegation of sexual abuse
had been made against him and another man, by a male 28 year old
student with learning difficulties. The officers put questions to the
applicant, including questions containing allegations of indecent
assault. On the advice of his solicitors, the applicant replied "no
comment" to these questions.
On 26 August 1992 the applicant learned that the police had
ceased their inquiries and did not propose to interview the other man
against whom allegations had been made by the student.
In January 1993, unknown to the applicant, a letter was sent to
all educational establishments under the authority of the Cornwall
County Council ("the Council"), stating that if the applicant attempted
to obtain a post at an educational establishment, the Council should
be contacted before offering any employment to the applicant.
On 9 February 1993, the applicant was sent a letter from the
college in Cornwall ("the college") where he was working as an
examiner, requesting that he cease working there and arrange for
another examiner to be appointed in his place. The letter stated that
the reason for the request was:
"the investigation held under the agreed professional abuse
procedures which related to your previous employment at a college
in Cornwall."
The applicant contacted solicitors who wrote to the college on
26 March 1993 requesting clarification of the contents of the letter.
The college passed this letter on to the Council. The Council replied
on 24 May 1993, to the effect that there had been an "investigation"
under the auspices of its Area Child Protection Committee. No further
information was provided. The applicant instructed fresh solicitors
who wrote to the Council on 18 June 1993 asking for clarification of
the "investigation" and its outcome. By a letter dated 28 June 1993
the Council replied stating:
"it was as a result of an investigation under the professional
abuse procedures and a decision made formally under those
procedures by a properly constituted planning meeting that the
local education authority should be contacted before employment
was offered to him. It was in response to this letter that [the
college] advised that [the applicant comes] ... into contact with
the college students and it was thus that [the college] wrote to
[the applicant] in the terms advised by the County Council."
The applicant's solicitors sought emergency legal aid for the
applicant and instructed counsel. By an application dated
12 August 1993 the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of
the Area Child Protection Committee of the Council to blacklist the
applicant in respect of educational establishments operated by the
Local Education Authority. The applicant sought to quash the
blacklisting decision and to obtain compensation in respect of the
damage to his career.
At an oral hearing on 22 October 1993 Mr Justice Auld adjourned
the hearing of the application, upon the agreement of the Council to
provide the applicant with an oral hearing. However, following this
ruling on 22 October 1993 there was lengthy correspondence between the
solicitors of the applicant and the Council in relation to the
disclosure of documents. By 13 May 1994 the applicant's solicitors
were satisfied they had all the relevant material necessary for a
proper hearing. On 8 September 1994 the applicant's solicitors wrote
to the Council stating that in default of a hearing date being given
by the Council, they would make an application to the Court. In
response to this letter the Council informed the applicant that an oral
hearing by the Council would commence on 2 November 1994. The
applicant agreed to this date. The hearing took place on 2 and
3 November 1994 and 5 December 1994. On 16 December 1994 the Council
informed the applicant that the allegations made against him had been
found to be unsubstantiated.
On 7 July 1995 the judicial review proceedings were settled. The
Council agreed to pay the applicant's reasonable legal costs and also
to write to the various educational bodies, to whom it had previously
written in January 1993, stating that the allegations against the
applicant had proved unfounded. The applicant reserved the right to
seek damages.
On 9 September 1995 the applicant obtained legal aid to obtain
counsel's advice as to the merits of taking proceedings in negligence
against the Council seeking damages. Counsel advised that no such
action would lie in English law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant contends that his good reputation and ability to
carry on a profession were civil rights. He states that these were
interfered with by the Council without a prior hearing. The applicant
claims that the judicial review proceedings and the panel hearing in
1994 did not remedy the violation and these proceedings were not
conducted within a reasonable time. The applicant invokes Article 6
of the Convention in relation to these complaints.
The applicant further complains that he was provided with no
effective domestic remedy as he had no entitlement to damages. In this
respect the applicant invokes Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that he was blacklisted by the Council
without a prior hearing. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides, so far as
relevant, as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law..."
The Commission will assume for the purposes of the decision that
the blacklisting of the applicant, with the result that he was unable
to carry on his profession, and the subsequent judicial review of the
blacklisting, concerned a determination of his civil rights and thus
that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable.
The Commission notes that the applicant settled the judicial
review proceedings that he brought against the Council in July 1995.
In these circumstances the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards
the substance of the proceedings.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that he was unable to bring
proceedings, separate from the judicial review proceedings, in order
to claim damages against the Council. When the applicant settled the
judicial review proceedings he reserved the right to seek damages, but
was subsequently advised by counsel that no such action would lie in
English law against the Council. The applicant invokes Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not guarantee a right
to damages. The Commission notes that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of
the Convention extends only to disputes over civil rights and
obligations which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be
recognised under domestic law (see Eur. Court HR, 0 v. the United
Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, p.24, para. 54).
It is the applicant's contention that under domestic law there was no
right to claim damages against the Council in relation to their alleged
negligence in blacklisting the applicant.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
3. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention of the length of proceedings.
The Commission notes that there was a period of 16 months between
the commencement of judicial review and the finding that the
allegations against the applicant were unsubstantiated and then a
further seven months before the judicial review proceedings were
finally settled. The Commission notes that it was not until
8 September 1994 that the applicant insisted that the hearing ordered
by Mr Justice Auld be held, as prior to this the applicant's solicitors
had been involved in correspondence with the Council over the
disclosure of relevant documentation. The Commission does not consider
that in the circumstances such a period amounts to a breach of the
obligation to have a hearing within a reasonable time.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
4. The applicant complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention that he was unable to claim damages against the Council and
thus did not have an effective remedy.
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a
national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been
committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The Commission recalls that there is no "civil right" to claim
damages recognised under domestic law to attract the application of
Article 6 para. 1 and that Article 13 (Art. 6-1, 13) does not go so far
as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such
to be challenged before a national authority (see. Eur. Court HR,
Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990,
Series A no. 172, p. 16, para. 36).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy