AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23975/94
by I. S.-B.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 28 June 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
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 20 October 1993
by I. S.-B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 April 1994
under file No. 23975/94;
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 United Kingdom citizen born in 1938. Since
1966 he has been serving a life sentence. At present he is detained
at Ashworth Hospital in Liverpool. Before the Commission the applicant
is represented by Mr. Robin Makin, solicitor of E. Rex Makin & Co.,
Liverpool.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
Between 1986 and 1988 the applicant supplied the Manchester
Police with information which led to the recovery of a murder victim.
No further charges were brought against the applicant in this
connection.
In 1989 the applicant learned that the police officer to whom he
had furnished the information and who had led the investigation had
opted for early retirement and intended to write a book on the
applicant's case.
In July 1989 the applicant informed the Attorney General and the
Director of Public Prosecutions that the publication of the book,
envisaged for September 1989, and its serialisation in a newspaper
would be tantamount to a public trial by media. He considered that by
writing the book the police officer had breached confidence and
violated the Official Secrets Act 1911. The applicant was informed
that it was premature for the authorities concerned to decide whether
any legal action in this respect was appropriate.
In September 1989, following a second intervention by the
applicant after the publication of the book, the Greater Manchester
Police Authority instituted proceedings for breach of confidence and
copyright against the author of the book and the publishers. The
Attorney General considered that no investigation with a view to
proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 was necessary.
The applicant considered that he had a community of interest with
the Greater Manchester Police Authority in restraining the author of
the book and the publishers. In 1990 and 1991 he proposed that an
action contemplated by him should be consolidated with the proceedings
commenced by the Police Authority. He was informed that the
proceedings in question were between the Police Authority on the one
hand and its retired officer and others involved in the publication on
the other hand.
The proceedings related to (i) the constitutional position of
members of the Police Force and the conduct of former police officers
after leaving the Force (ii) breach of copyright, and (iii) the
proprietary interests in information supplied to the police. They had,
in the Police Authority's view, no bearing on any possible claim which
the applicant might have.
As to the proceedings for breach of copyright and confidence, an
out-of-court settlement was reached with the publishers and the author
of the book in May and June 1993. The settlement consisted in payment
of a part of the profits from the publication to the Police Authority.
The amount of the retired police officer's profits and the sum he
actually paid to the Police Authority were not officially revealed to
the public.
On 4 June 1993 the applicant complained to the Police Authority
that no action had been taken in advance of publication of the book in
question and of the absence of any action in respect of its subsequent
serialisation and partial republication. By letters of 10 and
22 June 1993 the applicant was informed that since he was not a party
to the proceedings against the retired police officer and the
publishers, he had no interest in those proceedings. The Police
Authority therefore decided to take no further action on the points
raised by the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the competent authorities either
took legal action belatedly (in respect of the publication of the book)
or failed to do so at all (in respect of serialisation of the book and
its partial republication). He alleges that the out-of-court
settlement resulting in financial gain of the Police Authority was
unlawful. The applicant considers that the police officer who wrote
the book should have been subject to a punitive penalty. He further
alleges that financial details relating to the police officer's total
profits resulting from disclosure of the confidential information and
the amount of money the latter paid to the Police Authority should be
revealed to the public.
The applicant also alleges that by the publication of the
confidential information involving his person he was subjected to
public trial by police and media without any official charges being
brought. He considers that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the
competent authorities, he had an interest in relation to the
information published in the book since it dealt with his case. He
draws the conclusion that the proceedings introduced against the police
officer determined also his rights.
The applicant alleges a violation, on the above facts, of his
rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 28, 30 and 45 of the
Convention and by Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleges that he has been subjected, by publication
of the book and its subsequent serialisation, to public trial by police
and media. He considers that since the book was about his case the
proceedings introduced against persons responsible for its publication
concerned also the determination of his rights. He alleges a violation
of Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) of the Convention.
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees to
everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or
of any criminal charge against him, the right to a fair and public
hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the
Convention guarantees the presumption of innocence and para. 3
(Art. 6-3) of the same Article provides for minimum rights in regard
to persons charged with a criminal offence.
The Commission notes that no further criminal proceedings were
brought against the applicant and the disclosure of confidential
information involving the applicant's person cannot be regarded as the
determination of a criminal charge against the applicant or as a public
trial of him within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention.
As to the complaint that the proceedings against the police
officer determined the civil rights of the applicant, the Commission
notes that the proceedings were brought by the Greater Manchester
Police Authority and concerned (i) the constitutional position of
members of the Police Force and the conduct of former police officers
after leaving the Force (ii) breach of copyright, and (iii) the
proprietary interests in information supplied to the police.
The applicant was not a party to those proceedings which, as the
Police Authority pointed out, did not relate to the rights, if any, of
the applicant arising from the publication of the book. The applicant
at all times remained free to introduce civil proceedings of his own
to assert any such rights but has not done so.
In these circumstances the Commission considers that, as regards
the applicant, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is inapplicable to
the proceedings introduced by the Police Authority.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further alleges that his rights guaranteed by
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention were violated by publication of
the confidential information concerning his person which he had
supplied to the police.
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as far as relevant,
guarantees to everyone the right to respect for his private life.
In the present case the applicant voluntarily confided to the
police, in the framework of a criminal investigation, information
related to facts which were the object of that investigation. Although
he may have been entitled to expect that the information would be used
only for purposes related to the investigation, it does not appear from
the documents submitted that the authorities concerned undertook
formally a duty of confidence vis-à-vis the applicant in this respect.
The Commission notes that the applicant has not, in any event,
introduced an action for breach of confidence or defamation against the
author of the book or its publishers. In these circumstances the
question is raised whether the applicant has exhausted the domestic
remedies available to him.
The Commission does not, however, find it necessary to determine
this question since the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the
following reasons.
The applicant is serving a life sentence after having been
convicted of murder and the information which the applicant supplied
to the police and which forms the subject matter of the book is related
to the location of the body of one of his victims. Even if the
information was not already in the public domain and may be regarded
as having been supplied by the applicant in confidence, the Commission
finds that the information did not relate to the sphere of private life
within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. Nor has
the applicant shown in what other respect the contents of the book
interfered with respect for his private life within the meaning of that
Article (Art. 8).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
3. The applicant further complains of violations of his rights under
Articles 3, 5, 9, 28, 30 and 45 (Art. 3, 5, 9, 28, 30, 45) of the
Convention and under Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-3, P7-4).
The Commission has examined such complaints but finds that insofar as
they have been substantiated and are within its competence, they do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention or in its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
4. Finally, the applicant complains of a violation of his rights
under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention on the grounds that there
existed no effective remedy in respect of his claims under the
Convention.
The Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention guarantees an effective remedy to everyone alleging a
violation of the Convention, so long as there exists an arguable claim
of such violation. For the reasons given above, the Commission finds
that the applicant has no arguable claim of a violation of his rights
guaranteed by the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is also 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 President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy