Search
document

Document text Analytics

WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30535/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4152

Document date: March 4, 1998

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

WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30535/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4152

Document date: March 4, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 30535/96

by Jeremy WILSON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 March 1998, the following members being present:

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

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 12 December 1995

by Jeremy WILSON against the United Kingdom and registered on

20 March 1996 under file No. 30535/96;

Having regard to:

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

the Commission;

- the letter submitted by the respondent Government dated

19 December 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant's representative on 20 January 1998;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1964,

and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in

HMP Oxford. He is represented by Mr. S. Creighton, a solicitor

practising in London.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant was convicted of drug offences and sentenced to

five years' imprisonment. Between March 1994 and August 1995, the

applicant was receiving weekly psychiatric counselling for having

suffered repeated sexual abuse by different perpetrators over a number

of years in his childhood.

On 17 June 1995, in HMP The Mount where he was detained at that

point in time, the applicant received an open visit from two former

inmates. In the course of this visit, the applicant was passed a

package by these visitors and asked to deliver it to another inmate at

the prison. The applicant accepted the package and placed it in his

trousers.

Upon reflection, the applicant decided to return the package to

the visitors. He left the table at which the visit was conducted and

asked the supervising prison officer for a piece of paper on which he

could write a note. While walking back to the table, he retrieved the

package and passed it back to the visitors inside the piece of paper.

The visits room was also monitored by closed circuit television.

It was recorded that the applicant accepted and concealed an item on

his person, left the table and, upon return to the table, wrote on a

piece of paper which he then passed to his visitors.

After the visit, the applicant was not allowed to regain his cell

but was taken to the segregation unit. He was then strip searched in

accordance with normal procedures and placed in a strip cell. No

illicit articles were found on him.

As the applicant realised that it was suspected that he had

concealed the package internally, he asked during the search on three

occasions for a doctor to be called to conduct an internal examination

in order to prove he had not concealed anything internally. He was

informed that the doctor would not be called since it was weekend and

the call-out fee was £60. When the applicant then asked how he could

prove his innocence, he was told he could defecate in a bucket. The

applicant agreed with this course of action.

A bucket was brought to the strip cell and the applicant

defecated into it while being watched by two prison officers. When he

presented the bucket to them, he was told that he himself had to go

through the faeces to prove that there was nothing contained in them.

The applicant's request to be given gloves for this purpose was

refused. He then examined the faeces with his bare hands. Nothing was

found.

After the search, the applicant was detained in the segregation

unit for a further three days and placed on closed visits for two

months.

Following a complaint by the applicant's representative, the

Governor of HMP The Mount ordered an investigation of the events on

17 June 1995.

By letter of 2 August 1995, the Governor informed the applicant's

representative that no grounds had been found to substantiate the

applicant's allegations. The Governor concluded that the two prison

officers had acted professionally throughout.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that being required to defecate in front

of two prison officers and then being required to examine the faeces

with bare hands is humiliating and debasing from both a subjective and

objective point of view and, therefore, contrary to Article 3 of the

Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 December 1995 and registered

on 20 March 1996.

On 21 May 1997 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.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

By letter of 28 August 1997 the Government informed the

Commission that they had started friendly settlement negotiations and

by following letter of 19 December 1997 the Government confirmed that

a cheque had been sent to the applicant for the amount claimed by the

applicant, and that payment of his solicitor's costs as submitted had

been approved. On 20 January 1998 the applicant's representative

confirmed the friendly settlement payment of £500 pounds to Mr Wilson

and his submission of bill of costs in the sum of £1,106.25 to the

Government on 9 December 1997.

In this situation 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