Application No. 18414/91
by Anthony RAISEY
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 October 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 5 April 1991 by
Anthony RAISEY against the United Kingdom and registered on 25 June
1991 under file No. 18414/91;
Having regard to:
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 2 December 1991 to communicate the
case to the respondent Government without requesting observations
and to adjourn it pending the outcome of Applications Nos.
14553/89 and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United
Kingdom;
- the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those
applications on 26 May 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Irish citizen born in 1955 and resident in
Belfast, Northern Ireland. He is a labourer by profession, unemployed
at present.
He is represented before the Commission by Mr. John J. Rice of
Messrs. John J. Rice and Co, Solicitors, Belfast.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested under Section 14 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 at approximately 21.05 hours
on 4 March 1991. He was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre where
he was detained until the evening of 11 March 1991 (exact time of
release unspecified). The applicant states that he was questioned
about handling blast bombs and involvement in the IRA. He was not
brought before any judicial authority. The applicant also states that
he has been the subject of previous arrests under the Prevention of
Terrorism legislation and that he has a number of criminal convictions.
On 23 December 1988, prior to the applicant's arrest, the United
Kingdom had informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
that they derogated from the requirements of Article 5 of the
Convention in respect of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism
(Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. This provision was replaced by
Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
1989, pursuant to which the applicant was detained.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges that he was deprived of his liberty. He
states that he has been informed that he has no right of redress under
domestic law and that he was given no documents by the arresting police
officer.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 5 April 1991 and registered on
25 June 1991. The Commission decided on 2 December 1991 to communicate
the case to the respondent Government and to adjourn it pending the
outcome of two similar applications challenging the United Kingdom's
derogation of 23 December 1988: Applications Nos. 14553/89 and
14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (Comm. Report
3.12.91), which were subsequently referred to the European Court of
Human Rights.
The Court gave its judgment in the Brannigan and McBride cases
on 26 May 1993 (to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The
applicant's representatives were asked whether the applicant wished to
maintain his case and, if so, to submit comments on how his case could
be distinguished from those of Brannigan and McBride. No reply was
received to that inquiry.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant complained of a denial
of his right to liberty, without redress, on his arrest and detention
under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)
Act 1989. Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty
and redress for unlawful arrest or detention, but the Court has held
that detention of the duration experienced by the applicant is
compatible with Article 5 of the Convention, given the valid derogation
made by the United Kingdom on 23 December 1988 (Eur. Court H.R.,
Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May 1993, to be published in
Series A no. 258-B).
The applicant has not stated how his case could be distinguished
from this judgment or whether he wishes to maintain his application.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant does
not intend to pursue his petition and that there are no reasons of a
general character concerning respect for Human Rights, within the
meaning of Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, which require its
retention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy