THE FACTS

Whereas the facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, born in

1913, and at present detained in the Blundeston prison at Lowestoft.

On .. June, 1966, the applicant was convicted of conspiracy in a series

of company frauds at the Birmingham Assizes and sentenced to twelve

years' preventive detention.

According to the applicant, this decision was subsequently upheld by

the full Court of Appeal in January, 1967.

Under Section 37 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, preventive

detention was abolished. However, in order to protect the public from

certain persistent offenders, the Act gave the courts powers to impose

an extended term of imprisonment if certain conditions were satisfied.

However, this extended term can never exceed ten years, whereas,

according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948,

which was applied to the applicant, a sentence of preventive detention

could be imposed in lieu of any other sentence for a maximum term of

fourteen years.

Under Schedule 5 to the 1967 Act (which entered into force on 1st

October, 1967) a person sentenced to preventive detention, who was

detained in pursuance of his sentence on 1st April, 1968, shall be

treated for purposes of detention, release, recall and otherwise as

having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of the same length as

the term of his original sentence.

The applicant submits that all prisoners serving sentences of

preventive detention have had their sentences reviewed by the Home

Office. However, only six cases were found to warrant a reduction of

sentence. In some of these cases, the sentence was reduced from

fourteen years to ten years, which corresponded to the maximum term

under Section 37 of the 1967 Act.

The applicant maintains that a person serving a sentence of preventive

detention enjoys considerably more freedom than ordinary prisoners from

whom he is kept apart. According to him, the offenses of which he was

convicted would normally have warranted a term of seven years'

imprisonment, had not the judge chosen to sentence the applicant to

preventive detention in order to protect the public, knowing that such

a sentence entailed more freedom.

The applicant claims that since a sentence of preventive detention is

no longer legal, the committal order under which he is held is no

longer legal. He further contends that a sentence of preventive

detention passed prior to the entry into force of the relevant

provisions of the 1967 Act must be altered to conform with the legal

maximum of the Act. Consequently, he should, in any event, not be

forced to serve more than ten years.

According to the applicant, the Home Office has recognised, by reducing

certain sentences of fourteen years to ten years, that penalties under

the new Act were intended to be less severe than the 1948 Act. Common

justice thus demands a pro-rata reduction of all preventive detention

sentences.

The applicant does not invoke any specific Article of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

sentence imposed at the Birmingham Assizes on .. June, 1966, Article

26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides that the Commission may only

deal with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on

which the final decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the

Court of Appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of

this complaint was given in January, 1967; whereas the present

application was not submitted to the Commission until 27th June, 1968,

that is, more than six months after the date of this decision;

Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or

suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that this part

of the application has been lodged out of time (Article 26 and 27,

paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention);

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains that he is improperly

detained in prison, it is clear that the applicant is detained after

conviction by a competent court and in accordance with his sentence and

that his detention is accordingly not the consequence of any arbitrary

action by the authorities; whereas, therefore, his detention is

"lawful" within the meaning of Article 5, paragraph (1) (a)

(Art. 5-1-a), of the Convention;

Whereas, furthermore, it is to be observed that the sentence of

preventive detention was imposed in 1966 in accordance with the law

then in force;

Whereas no further sentences of preventive detention could be imposed

after the date the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, came into force;

Whereas this did not, however, affect the validity of such a sentence

already imposed which, by virtue of the statute, for purposes of

detention, release, recall and otherwise, was to be treated as a

sentence of imprisonment of the same length as the original sentence;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant maintains that the principle by which

extended imprisonment is limited to ten years, should be applied to

him, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, does neither

reveal that the applicant is being subject to a more severe form of

punishment than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal

offence was committed, contrary to Article 7, paragraph (1) (Art. 7-1),

of the Convention, nor can he claim to be subject to discrimination on

grounds set out in Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention;

Whereas, it follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE