EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PLENARY

Application No. 30307/96

B.H.

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 30 June 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 application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by B.H. against the United Kingdom on 16 February 1996. It was registered on 27 February 1996 under file No. 30307/96.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Gordon Reed, a solicitor practising in Essex . The respondent Government were represented by their Agents, Iain Christie and, subsequently, Hugh Llewellyn , both of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

3. On 1 December 1997 the Commission declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:

"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 found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 30 June 1998 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 S. TRECHSEL, President

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

D. ŠVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIČ

C. BÃŽRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

MM R. NICOLINI

A. ARABADJIEV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1960, and currently resident in Northamptonshire .

7. On 24 May 1993 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter of the brother of his then girlfriend and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The applicant had fought with the victim and the latter was left unconscious having suffered a brain haemorrhage , three broken ribs and severe bruising to his face and body. The victim died the following day. The applicant was released from prison on 17 July 1995.

8. On 29 August 1995 the applicant was arrested by the police and charged with the rape of a woman in her home, who was an acquaintance of the applicant. The applicant maintained that he had had consensual sexual intercourse with the woman in her home. From the documents submitted by the parties, it appears that the alleged victim's statement was the main evidence against the applicant. He was brought before the Magistrates' Court on 30 August 1995. He was remanded in custody by the Magistrate on the grounds that by virtue of section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act") he was not entitled to bail and that (having regard to the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence) there was reason to believe that he might interfere with witnesses.

9. The applicant was committed for trial in the Crown Court on 11 October 1995 and the trial took place between 11 and 14 March 1996. The applicant was acquitted and released from custody.

10. The applicant complained that his automatic exclusion from bail prior to his trial by the application of section 25 of the 1994 Act was contrary to his rights under Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 and Article 13 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

11. 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. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.

12. By letter dated 6 April 1998 the Government proposed to settle the matter on the basis of an amendment to section 25 of the 1994 Act replacing the words "shall not be granted bail in those proceedings" by the words "shall be granted bail in those proceedings only if the court or, as the case may be, the constable considering the grant of bail is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it". The Government also proposed to pay the reasonable and necessarily incurred costs of the applicant in his proceedings before the Commission.

13. The applicant responded by letter dated 24 April 1998 requiring, in addition to the above proposals of the Government, compensation in relation to the time he spent in pre-trial detention. By letter dated 27 May 1998 the Government agreed to pay to the applicant £2000.00 by way of non-pecuniary damages, in addition to the proposals contained in their letter of 6 April 1998. By letters dated 26 June 1998 and 29 June 1998 the Government and the applicant, respectively confirmed settlement of the case on the basis of the proposals contained in the Government's letter of 6 April 1998 together with £3000.00 non-pecuniary damages.

14. At its session on 30 June 1998 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.

15. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

        M. DE SALVIA                                                      S. TRECHSEL

         Secretary                                                                      President

     to the Commission                                                  of the Commission