Search
document

Document text Analytics

EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27239/95 • ECHR ID: 001-4189

Document date: April 16, 1998

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

EVANS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27239/95 • ECHR ID: 001-4189

Document date: April 16, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 27239/95

by Andrew EVANS

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 16 April 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 15 March 1995 by

Andrew EVANS against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 May 1995

under file No. 27239/95;

Having regard to:

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

13 January 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 4 February 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1955. He is

represented before the Commission by Ms. Kate Akester, a solicitor

working for Justice in London. The facts as submitted by the applicant

may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was convicted of murder in April 1973 at the age

of seventeen. He was sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's

pleasure.

By letter of 15 November 1994, after serving twenty two years of

imprisonment, the Secretary of State informed the applicant that the

trial judge when consulted in 1982 as to the tariff (the period to be

served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) had

made no recommendation. The Lord Chief Justice had written that: "there

is no reason on grounds of punishment why this man should not be

released after 12 1/2 years." The Secretary of State at that time

however had concluded that the case warranted a higher tariff than that

suggested by the Lord Chief Justice and set the tariff at 20 years with

a first review in October 1989 at the 17 year point. In 1987, the

Secretary of State had agreed that the review should be brought forward

to January 1988. The letter concluded by informing the applicant that

his tariff had now expired and that whether or not he would be released

would depend on a favourable recommendation by the Parole Board and the

exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion, taking into account

how society would view the prisoner's release at that time.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction

out of time. This was granted. On 3 December 1997, the Court of Appeal

allowed his appeal. It found that the conviction had rested entirely

on his confessions to the police and that as these were entirely

unreliable, the conviction was unsafe and should be quashed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that he had never had the opportunity

of obtaining a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention by

a body complying with the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 of the

Convention, in particular in that he was denied an oral hearing on the

expiry of his tariff. He also complained of the increase in his tariff

by the Secretary of State, a member of the Executive rather than the

judiciary, and of being denied the opportunity to make representations

as to his tariff.

The applicant also invoked Article 5 para. 5 in relation to the

absence of any effective right to compensation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 15 March 1995 and registered

on 4 May 1995.

On 26 June 1996 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to

communicate the application to the respondent Government, pursuant to

Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to invite them to

submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

On 5 November 1996, the Government submitted observations on the

admissibility and merits and on 23 December 1996, the applicant

submitted his observations in reply.

By letter dated 25 February 1997, the Government provided further

information relating to the applicant's review.

On 13 January 1998, the Government informed the Commission that

the applicant's conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on

3 December 1997 whereupon the applicant was immediately released from

prison, and requested the Commission to strike the application out of

its list of cases.

By letter dated 4 February 1998, the applicant confirmed that he

had been released, that he qualified for compensation and stated that

he wished to withdraw his application.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that on 3 December 1997 the applicant's

conviction was quashed and that he was released from prison. In light

of these events, the applicant, who is eligible for compensation under

domestic law, has stated that he does not wish to proceed with his

application.

In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the matter

which has been the subject of the application has been resolved within

the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. The

Commission, furthermore, having regard to Article 30 para. 1 in fine,

finds no special circumstances regarding respect of human rights as

defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the

examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant