THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1923 and at

present detained in prison at Grendon Underwood.

He was put on probation at Somerset Quarter Session on .. January 1968.

A condition of the probation order was that he should reside at the Y

Hospital or any place directed by a Dr. B for a period not exceeding

twelve months and receive treatment from him.

He says that during the period he was in the hospital he received no

treatment, he was detained in a locked ward and he eventually asked to

be discharged. He says that Dr B, after communicating with the

probation service, agreed to his request because, as he later stated

in writing, he had no power to detain the applicant while the latter

was a voluntary patient.

The applicant complains that the condition included in the probation

order was invalid because the restrictions placed upon him could not

be legally enforced by Dr B.

The applicant was charged with failing to comply with a condition of

the probation order, namely leaving the hospital without Dr B's

permission. He says that he made no plea before the summary court in

answer to this charge, reserved his defence and was committed to

Somerset Quarter Sessions. He alleges that he was not allowed to plead,

being told that he was appearing for sentence only, having been found

guilty by the magistrates, and was sentenced on .. February 1968 to

four years' imprisonment. He complains that he was not legally tried

but found "guilty on supposition". He applied for leave to appeal which

was refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal on .. July 1968.

The full Court of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused leave

to appeal against sentence on .. January 1969, but he maintains that

his appeal was against conviction as well. His application to the House

of Lords was refused on .. January 1969. He claims that he has been

deprived to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention

should be decided.

He further complains that the only evidence against him was a probation

officer's report which was not made available to him until eight months

after he was sentenced, after his Member of Parliament had made

representations to the Home Secretary. He alleges that the prison

authorities repeatedly obstructed his efforts to obtain certain

information relating to his case, and he eventually asked the Court of

Appeal to make a direction against them. The applicant gives no further

particulars of this allegation.

He alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, insofar as the applicant can be said to complain of the

conviction in respect of which he was put on probation, it is to be

observed that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the

Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have

been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of

international law; and whereas the applicant failed to make use of his

right to appeal which was available to him immediately after his

conviction;

Whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted the remedies available to him

under English law; whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it

has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not

disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have

absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his

disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of

domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)

(Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by the

applicant;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the probation

order was invalid because it was not legally enforceable, the question

whether or not such condition was legally enforceable has no bearing

on the validity of a probation order whose essential object is to seek

the voluntary compliance of the probationer;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was detained

in a locked ward in the hospital, it is to be recalled that, under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal

with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according

to the generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the

applicant failed to show that he made any complaint to the appropriate

authorities or attempted to institute any proceedings;

Whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies available

to him under English law; whereas, moreover an examination of the case

does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which

might have absolved the applicant from exhausting the domestic remedies

at his disposal;

Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic

remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27 (Art. 26, 27) of that

Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains, under Article 6, paragraph

(1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, that he did not have a fair trial

in the proceedings before the magistrates and Quarter Sessions

following which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, it is to

be observed that the applicant's failure to comply with the condition

under the probation order empowered to the court to pass sentence on

the applicant for the original offense; whereas the validity of the

probation order could no longer be challenged in those proceedings;

Whereas therefore, the only issue before Quarter Sessions, before

passing sentence was whether or not the applicant had failed to comply

with the condition under the probation order; whereas a finding on this

issue since it could and did in the present case lead to the imposition

of a sentence, was in substance the determination of a criminal charge

within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the

Convention;

Whereas, however, it was not controvertible, and does not appear ever

to have been disputed by the applicant, that he was in fact in breach

of this condition; whereas, therefore, the sole issue before the court

was not in dispute; whereas it follows that the applicant's complaint

that he did not receive a fair hearing is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the

Convention;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains of his subsequent

detention, and in particular that he had been deprived of his right

under Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4) of the Convention to take

proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided,

it is clear that the applicant was detained after conviction by a

competent court and in accordance with the terms of his sentence in

conformity with Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the

Convention;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also paragraph

(2) (Art. 5-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission

DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE