AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 28189/95
by Keith POLLARD
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
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 26 July 1995 by
Keith POLLARD against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 August
1995 under file No. 28189/95;
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, a United Kingdom citizen born in 1966, resides in
Preston, Lancashire. Before the Commission he is represented by Ms.
Deborah Still, a solicitor practising in Preston.
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant became liable to pay community charge (poll tax)
on 31 March 1990. Three liability orders were issued on 30 January
1991, 25 March and 1 July 1992.
Since April 1993 the applicant was in receipt of income support.
On an unspecified date the Hyndburn Borough Council sought to
commit the applicant to prison for non payment of community charge.
On 14 July 1993 the applicant appeared before the Hyndburn Magistrates'
Court. At the hearing he was represented by a solicitor. The
applicant explained that he had considerable debts and that he was
unable to meet the payments. It was also argued on the applicant's
behalf that if the Court were minded to find wilful refusal or culpable
neglect then they should suspend any terms of imprisonment on term.
On the same day the Hyndburn Magistrates' Court committed the
applicant to 72 days in prison for failure to pay community charge.
The applicant served 21 days in prison. He applied for, and was
granted, release on bail and leave to apply for judicial review before
the High Court.
On 25 January 1995, at an oral hearing, the High Court delivered
an order quashing the applicant's committal to prison. The grounds
therefor were that the imprisonment order had been delivered without
proper regard to possible alternatives to immediate imprisonment. The
judgment stated inter alia that the Magistrates had made an order
"which as a matter of law they had no power to make".
On 25 July 1995 the applicant signed a power of attorney
authorising his solicitor to represent him before the Commission.
On 26 July 1995 the solicitor wrote a cover letter and posted the
application to the Commission.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention
that his detention was unlawful in that the court failed to enquire
into the applicant's means before issuing the committal order. The
court thus failed to meet a condition precedent to the issuance of the
committal order and, therefore, acted in excess of jurisdiction.
The applicant also complains under Article 5 para. 5 of the
Convention of the lack of compensation for the unlawful detention.
Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant submits that
legal aid was not available at the committal hearing.
THE LAW
The applicant raises complaints under Articles 5 and 6
(Art. 5, 6) of the Convention concerning his committal to prison for
failure to pay community charge.
The Commission has examined whether the applicant has complied
with the six months' rule under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
It recalls the Convention organs' case-law according to which, as
regards the time limits under the Convention, the first day of a time-
limit is considered to start on the day following the final decision,
whereas "months" are calculated as calendar months regardless of their
actual duration. An application is considered to be introduced within
the time-limit if it was posted on or before the last day of the six
months period (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Oberschlick judgment of 23 May
1991, Series A no. 204, p. 21 paras. 38 - 40; Istituto di Vigilanza
judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 265-C, p. 35 para. 14;
Appl. No. 21034/92, Dec. 9.1.95, D.R. 80, p. 87).
The Commission notes that the final decision in the present case,
within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, was the
High Court's judgment of 25 January 1995 and that it was pronounced on
the same day in open court. It follows that the six months' time-limit
runs from 26 January 1995, the day following the final decision, and
that its last day is 25 July 1995.
The Commission further notes that the applicant has signed a
power of attorney authorising his representative before the Commission,
on 25 July 1995. However, his application was posted on 26 July 1995,
which is also the date of the solicitor's cover letter.
It follows that the application has been introduced out of the
six months' time-limit contrary to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention and has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy