EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Applications Nos. 24842/94, 25276/94, 25278/94,
25282/94, 25284/94 and 26063/94
Anthony Redfern, Albert Ashley, Darren Gratton,
Paul Hogg, Daryl Meikleham and Adrian Green
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 10 March 1998)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the applications introduced under
Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Anthony Redfern (No. 24842/94),
Albert Ashley (No. 25276/94), Darren Gratton (No. 25278/94), Paul Hogg
(No. 25282/94), Daryl Meikleham (No. 25284/94) and Adrian Green
(No. 26063/94), introduced respectively on 26 October 1994, 31 March
1994, 24 May 1994, 7 July 1994, 12 July 1994 and 5 December 1994
against the United Kingdom. The applications were registered on
17 November 1994, 23 September 1994, 23 September 1994, 23 September
1994, 23 September 1994 and 21 December 1994 respectively.
2. The applicants were represented by Clyde, Chappell & Botham,
solicitors practising in Stoke-on-Trent.
3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their
Agent, Mr Eaton.
4. On 10 September 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the
applications admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under
Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:
"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to
it:
a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake
together with the representatives of the parties an examination
of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the
effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the
Commission;
b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of
the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights
as defined in this Convention."
5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 March 1998 it adopted this
Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,
is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution
reached.
6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
7. The applicants are United Kingdom citizens. At the relevant time
they were aged under 21.
8. Each of the applicants, in separate proceedings, was committed
by a Magistrates' Court to a term of imprisonment in respect of his
failure to pay community charge (poll-tax) and was imprisoned. Each
of the applicants then obtained release on bail and leave to apply for
judicial review. In the judicial review proceedings the committal
orders were quashed. In the cases of some of the applicants it was
noted, inter alia, that the magistrates had failed to consider, or to
state in open court, the reasons for rejecting methods of extracting
payment other than imprisonment as required in cases of persons aged
under 21, in accordance with Sections 1(5) and 1(5A) of the Criminal
Justice Act 1982 in conjunction with Regulation 42(7) of the Community
Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.
9. None of the applicants was legally represented at the committal
hearing.
10. Before the Commission the applicants complained under Article 5
para. 1 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful as the
magistrates, having failed to comply with Sections 1(5) and 1(5A) of
the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and with Regulation 42(7) of the
Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 and
with other legal requirements, were acting in excess of jurisdiction.
The applicants also complained under Article 5 para. 5 that they could
not receive compensation for the unlawful detention as the law provided
for such a possibility only in cases where the magistrates had acted
in bad faith, and under Article 6 of the Convention that legal aid was
not available before the magistrates.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
11. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the
parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance
with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties
to submit any proposals they wished to make.
12. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
13. By letters of 30 January, 3 and 16 February, and 3 March 1998 the
parties informed the Commission that they had reached a friendly
settlement on the following terms:
"Without prejudice to the issue of liability the Government
would pay the following sums to the applicants in respect of
their imprisonment:
Mr Redfern £ 4,000
Mr Ashley £ 1,250
Mr Gratton £ 4,000
Mr Hogg £ 2,500
Mr Meikleham £ 3,000
Mr Green £ 1,750
The Government also agreed on the same basis to pay
£ 15,700 in costs of the Strasbourg proceedings relating to
these six applications.
The Government drew attention to the amendments to the
legal aid arrangement introduced in implementation of the
judgment in Benham v. the United Kingdom (Eur. Court HR,
judgment of 10 June 1996)."
14. The Government informed the Commission that the above amounts had
been paid on 22 December 1997.
15. At its session on 10 March 1998, the Commission noted that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.
It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured
on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.
16. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy