Search
document

Document text Analytics

BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26064/94 • ECHR ID: 001-4005

Document date: December 3, 1997

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

BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26064/94 • ECHR ID: 001-4005

Document date: December 3, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 26064/94

by Anthony William BROWN

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 3 December 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

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 5 December 1994

by Anthony William Brown against the United Kingdom and registered on

21 December 1994 under file No. 26064/94;

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

8 November 1996 and the letters sent by the Secretariat of the

Commission to the applicant;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a United Kingdom citizen born in 1967, resides in

Devonport, Plymouth. Before the Commission he was represented by

Mr M. Phillips, a solicitor of Birmingham, and subsequently by Clyde

Chappell & Botham solicitors of Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant became liable to pay community charge (poll tax)

on 1 April 1990. At the relevant time he was unemployed.

On 5 March 1992 the local Magistrates' Court committed the

applicant to 14 days in prison for failure to pay community charge.

The applicant served one day in prison. He applied for, and was

granted, release on bail and leave to apply for judicial review before

the High Court. He was not legally represented at the committal

proceedings.

In the judicial review proceedings all parties agreed to settle

the matter. On 9 June 1994 the High Court delivered a consent order

approving the settlement and quashing the applicant's committal to

prison.

The High Court made no order for damages. The applicant took

counsel's opinion as to whether he had an arguable claim for damages

under United Kingdom law. In November 1994 he was granted legal aid

for that purpose. The opinion of counsel was that the applicant had

no possible claim under United Kingdom law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention

that his detention was unlawful in that the court failed to have proper

regard to certain legal requirements therefor. He also complains under

Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention of the lack of compensation for the

unlawful detention.

Under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention the applicant

submits that legal aid was not available and that he was not legally

represented at the committal hearing.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 5 December 1994 and registered

on 21 December 1994.

On 28 February 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, without requesting written

observations at that stage, pending the outcome of the case of Benham

v. the United Kingdom (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 June 1996,

Reports 1996-III, No. 10). On 2 July 1996 the Commission invited the

respondent Government to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

8 November 1996. On 3 December 1996 a copy of these observations was

sent to the applicant's representatives who were invited to submit,

before 23 January 1997, their observations in reply. This time-limit

was extended to 10 March 1997, upon the request of the applicant's

representatives. No observations were received by the Commission.

By letters to the applicant's representatives sent on 25 March

and again on 9 May 1997 by registered mail, the applicant was warned

about the provision of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. No

reply was received.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant, represented by

solicitors, did not submit observations in reply to the Government's

observations. Furthermore, no reaction was received to two warning

letters, the second having been sent by registered mail.

In these circumstances, the Commission concludes pursuant to

Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that the applicant

does not intend to pursue his application and that it is, therefore,

no longer justified to continue the examination of the petition.

Moreover, there are no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human Rights as defined in the Convention which require the further

examination of this application.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

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

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant