EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST CHAMBER
Application No. 19526/92
Nicholas WARD
against
the United Kingdom
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 5 July 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article
25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by Nicholas Ward against
the United Kingdom on 18 November 1991. It was registered on
18 February 1992 under file No. 19526/92.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Prince
Evans, solicitors from London. The respondent Government were
represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office.
3. On 8 January 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights (First
Chamber) declared the application 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."
4. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached
a friendly settlement of the case and on 5 July 1993 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.
5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:
MM. F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
6. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1963. He is
currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at H.M. Prison Albany on
the Isle of Wight.
7. The applicant received a discretionary life sentence on 18
January 1985 for manslaughter, having been found to be of diminished
responsibility. He did not appeal against conviction or sentence.
8. His "tariff" expired in or about 1988, since when, according to
a letter of 27 October 1991 from the Home Office, the applicant's
continued detention has depended solely on the risk that he presents.
9. The applicant's case was reviewed by the Local Review Committee
(LRC) in September 1988. When the case came before the Parole Board
in January 1989, the Board did not recommend release.
10. The applicant went before the LRC again in January 1991. He
states that all the reports on him were excessive. By letter dated 30
July 1991, the Home Office informed him that the Parole Board had not
recommended his release. He was also informed that his case was to be
referred to the LRC again in July 1994.
11. The applicant complained to the Commission that he had no
possibility of having the continued lawfulness of his detention
reviewed, as required by Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention. The
applicant further complained under Article 5 para. 5 that he had no
enforceable right to compensation in respect of the above breach.
12. On 8 January 1993, the Commission declared admissible the
applicant's complaints under Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 of the
Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission 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.
14. 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.
15. Between January and April 1993 there were negotiations between
the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.
16. By letter dated 8 February 1993 the Government proposed to settle
the case on the basis of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991
(in force since October 1992) which provision is intended to give the
Parole Board the powers and functions of a court. They stated that the
applicant's case would be considered by the Parole Board sitting in its
new capacity on 27-28 April 1993 and offered to pay the applicant's
legal costs. By letter dated 26 April 1993, the applicant accepted this
offer.
17. At its session on 5 July 1993 the Commission found that the
parties had reached 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.
18. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the First Chamber Acting President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (F. ERMACORA)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy