Application No. 14474/88
by James Thomas RICKETT
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
7 September 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
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 17 August 1988
by James Thomas RICKETT against the United Kingdom and registered on
15 December 1988 under file No. 14474/88;
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 1966 and resident
in Wallasey. He is currently serving a three years prison sentence in
H.M. Prison Walton, Liverpool. The facts as submitted by the
applicant may be summarised as follows.
On the morning of 10 February 1988, the applicant and another
person were ordered to return to their cells by a prison officer. The
applicant refused since he had not yet had breakfast. The prisoner
with the applicant was pushed into his cell. The applicant submits
that a prison officer then took him in a bear hug and that he was
wrestled into his cell and onto the floor. He was later taken to a
solitary confinement cell.
On 11 February 1988, the applicant was informed by the
Governor that he had been placed on report for assaulting an officer
and would be tried by the Board of Visitors.
On 21 April 1988, the applicant appeared before the Board and
pleaded not guilty. The applicant asked if he could have legal
representation but was informed by the chairman that if at any time he
considered the applicant needed such representation he would adjourn
for a lawyer to be appointed. The prison officer alleging the assault
was called to make his statement. The applicant was allowed to put
questions to the officer through the Board. In answer to one of the
applicant's questions, the officer stated that three other officers
were present during the incident. However, when one of the visitors
requested the presence of these witnesses, the Board was informed that
the officers were not in the prison at this time.
The applicant then called as witness the other prisoner
involved in the incident, who, the applicant submits, confirmed his
story. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the applicant was told
that the case against him was proven and that he was to be punished
with loss of 56 days of remission.
The applicant petitioned the Home Secretary on 27 April 1988.
By reply dated 7 September 1988, the Home Secretary stated that a
formal review of the adjudication had taken place but no grounds for
interfering with the disciplinary award had been found.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained of a breach of Article 6 para. 3 (d)
of the Convention in that the three prison officers who witnessed the
incident were not called to give evidence.
He also invoked Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention, on the
basis that the loss of remission would have the effect of postponing
for a further two months his planned marriage on his release to his
girlfriend, who is mother of his daughter.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 17 August 1988 and
registered on 15 December 1988.
The Commission decided on 13 April 1989 to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them
to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. By letter
dated 14 June 1989, the Government informed the Secretariat that the
Secretary of State had decided to exercise his power under Rule 56 (1)
of the Prison Rules to quash the finding of the Board of Visitors of
21 April 1988 and to remit the punishment awarded.
By letter dated 6 July 1989, the applicant's solicitors
informed the Secretariat that in view of the steps taken the applicant
no longer wishes to pursue his application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the punishment of 56 days of loss of
remission imposed on the applicant has been remitted by the Secretary
of State and that in view of this development the applicant no longer
wishes to pursue his complaints. The Commission finds no reasons of a
general character affecting the observance of the Convention which
necessitate a further examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)