Search
document

Document text Analytics

X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 5076/71 • ECHR ID: 001-3147

Document date: May 31, 1972

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 5076/71 • ECHR ID: 001-3147

Document date: May 31, 1972

Cited paragraphs only

THE FACTS

The facts now under consideration relate to an alleged interference

with the applicant's effective exercise of his right of individual

petition under Article 25 of the Convention.

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in India in 1923

and now detained in H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs. In the proceedings

before the Commission he was represented by his wife, Mrs. X.

His application concerned an allegation, that during criminal

proceedings for fraud, his counsel spoke privately to the judge and

then put improper pressure on the applicant to plead guilty. The

Commission considered it on 23 March 1972 and decided that the evidence

submitted did not show that the applicant had been subjected to any

such improper pressure. The complaint was therefore declared

inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention. Insofar as the applicant

could be said to complain of the proceedings on sentence, that

complaint was also declared inadmissible as being manifestly

ill-founded.

The Commission finally noted that the applicant's case had been

presented on his behalf by his wife. She had stated that he was unable

to present his own case. The Commission considered this allegation

under Article 25 (1) in fine of the Convention which states that the

Government concerned undertakes not to hinder in any way the effective

exercise of the right of petition. It noted that a reply was awaited

to a letter from the Secretary asking for further particulars of this

complaint and it decided to adjourn its examination of the alleged

interference with the effective exercise of the applicant's right of

individual petition under Article 25.

The applicant's wife has now made further submissions on this point.

The position appears to be as follows:

The application was first introduced by Mrs. X. in April 1971. On 23

June 1971 the applicant himself wrote to the Commission confirming his

wife's authority to act on his behalf.

On 16 February 1972, after a preliminary examination of the case by a

group of three members on 11 February (Rule 45, 1 of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure), Mrs. X. was asked to explain, inter alia, why her

husband was unable to present his own case. She replied on 21 February:

"The reason my husband is not applying himself is that, he has depended

on British justice all along ... My husband ... wrote to the Home

Office asking them if he could apply to your good selves, they refused

and said that his wife could do so, so I myself knowing my husband's

position wrote to you."

Mrs X. wrote again on 6 March 1972:

"As far as my husband's position is in prison establishment, in which

he is placed, it would be quite impossible for him to gather the

necessary information, documentary or otherwise, to present his

petition in its fullness, to give you a close picture of the situation

in question, therefore, to assist you fully to reach a decision that

was fair and correct for him and the authorities concerned. I must say

the prison authorities in his establishment are most kind and helpful

within the limits of the regulations allowed to them. Indeed they are

most helpful within the limits. It is therefore fallen on to me to

fulfil those wifely duties to aid and protect my husband in his present

position."

On 10 March the Secretary to the Commission asked Mrs. X. to submit a

copy of the letter her husband had written to the Home Office. She

replied on 18 March:

"I have submitted all the documentary evidence to you and have replied

your questions to the best of my knowledge. I have no further evidence

to produce. I am not very sure about the correspondence with the Home

Office in connection with the application to your goodselves, I have

to confirm with my husband...".

On 30 March Mrs. X. was informed by the Commission's Secretary that the

application had been declared inadmissible and she was asked whether

she wished to add anything to what she had already said about

correspondence with the Home Office. Her reply, dated 5 April 1972, was

as follows:

"... I confirmed with my husband about the petition to your goodselves,

he says that, when he was in the Scrubs Prison he had to ask the prison

authorities to apply on his behalf to Home Office for permission to

apply to you, but it was refused and they mentioned that the wife had

a right to do so if she so wished.

Direct correspondence in this matter was prohibited by the authorities

and resulting from this confirmation, I applied to your goodselves as

I am free to do so."

On 12 April 1972 the Secretary wrote to Mrs X. attempting to clarify

this and requesting copies of any correspondence. Mrs X's letter, dated

18 April, contained the following passages:

"I have explained to you that my husband or anyone else did not have

any correspondence in writing with the Home Office, so therefore

unfortunately I cannot forward to you any copies of correspondence as

requested.

I was further informed by my husband that the Governor of the Scrubs

Prison refused altogether the idea of my husband corresponding with the

Home Office and the prison officer gave him the wrong information that

they had corresponded by phone or any other mean and that the Home

Office is not aware of the application to you, I don't think that it

is necessary because I am applying and not my husband, as I am free to

do so."

THE LAW

Mrs. X. has given various explanations of why it was necessary for her

to present the application on behalf of her husband. The only positive

reason given to explain the fact that Mr. X. did not originally present

his own case was that "he had depended on British justice all along".

In fact Mrs. X. applied to the Commission on behalf of her husband and

was fully able to present her husband's case. It follows that, even on

the supposition that the authorities interfered with the applicant

corresponding himself with the Commission, it has not been suggested

that this affected adversely the presentation of his case and there is,

therefore, no indication of any conduct on the part of the authorities

which might be considered inconsistent with the undertaking contained

in Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED

INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL

PETITION

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant