AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 18828/91
by Michael PORTER-HARRIS
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:
MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 June 1991 by
Michael Porter-Harris against the United Kingdom and registered on
20 September 1991 under file No. 18828/91;
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 1960 and resident in
Hartwell. He is represented before the Commission by Peter Ashman, a
barrister practising in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant
may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was sentenced on 30 June 1978 to a term of
discretionary life imprisonment for offences relating to possession of
a firearm with intent to endanger life. He was described by the court
as being of a "psychopathic disorder" with an "explosive temper".
The applicant was released on licence on 6 July 1990. Conditions
are attached to the licence which is of indefinite duration, inter
alia, that he may only reside and work where approved by his probation
officer and that he may not leave the country without the approval of
his probation officer.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the licence lasts for life and its
continued existence and the conditions imposed under it are
unreviewable. He complains that these restrictions interfere with his
rights under Articles 5, 8 and 11 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant compains that the life licence restricts his
freedom contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention,
which provides in its first sentence :
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person."
The Commission recalls that under the terms of his licence the
applicant must obtain the approval of his probation officer as regards
his place of residence and before leaving the country. The applicant
has made no complaint that this approval has been refused or that he
has in fact been prevented from going where he wishes. In these
circumstances, the Commission finds that the restrictions imposed in
fact on the applicant are not of such a nature or degree as to
constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5
(Art. 5) of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains that the life licence interferes
with his rights under Articles 8 and 11 (Art. 8, 11) of the Convention,
which provide, inter alia:
Article 8 (Art. 8):
"(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security, public
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others."
Article 11 (Art. 11):
"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and to freedom of association with others, including the
right to form and to join trade unions for the protection
of his interests.
(2) No restrictions shall be place on the exercise of
these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others..."
The Commission recalls that the licence imposes on the applicant
a number of conditions which potentially restrict his movements. The
Commission notes however that the applicant has not complained of any
specific prejudicial effect caused by the operation of the life licence
in his case. He has not indicated that his probation officer has
unreasonably or arbitrarily supervised the conditions imposed under the
life licence. The Commission considers that, assuming the existence of
the life licence constitutes an interference under the above
provisions, such interference may be justified for the purpose of the
prevention of crime and disorder. The measure has also not been shown
to be disproportionate bearing in mind that the applicant was sentenced
to life imprisonment for serious offences and considered to be
psychopathic.
The Commission accordingly finds that there is no indication of
a violation of Articles 8 and 11 (Art. 8, 11) of the Convention on the
facts of this case.
It follows that these complaints are 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.
Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber
(M. de SALVIA) (F. ERMACORA)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy