Search
document

Document text Analytics

REDFERN, ASHLEY, GRATTON, HOGG, MEIKLEHAM AND GREEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24842/94;25276/94;25278/94;25282/94;25284/94;26063/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45967

Document date: March 10, 1998

Inbound citations: 11
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

REDFERN, ASHLEY, GRATTON, HOGG, MEIKLEHAM AND GREEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24842/94;25276/94;25278/94;25282/94;25284/94;26063/94 • ECHR ID: 001-45967

Document date: March 10, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant