Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32338/96

by Jonathan P. HODGETTS

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 September 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

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 20 December 1995

by Jonathan P. HODGETTS against the United Kingdom and registered on

22 July 1996 under file No. 32338/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1957 and resident in

Cornwall. The facts, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a college lecturer specialising in special

educational needs. Between 1 September 1989 and 31 March 1992 the

applicant was a tutor/organiser for Cornwall Adult Basic Education.

The applicant was made redundant on 31 March 1992.

On 10 June 1992 the applicant was informed by police officers

that he should attend at Penzance Police Station to answer questions

relating to allegations of sexual abuse made by a former student. No

further clarification was given.

On 11 June 1992 the applicant instructed solicitors. He told

them that he had not done anything which could give rise to such

allegations. On 15 June 1992 he was interviewed by police officers of

the Child Protection Team at Penzance Police Station. The applicant

was informed prior to the interview that an allegation of sexual abuse

had been made against him and another man, by a male 28 year old

student with learning difficulties. The officers put questions to the

applicant, including questions containing allegations of indecent

assault. On the advice of his solicitors, the applicant replied "no

comment" to these questions.

On 26 August 1992 the applicant learned that the police had

ceased their inquiries and did not propose to interview the other man

against whom allegations had been made by the student.

In January 1993, unknown to the applicant, a letter was sent to

all educational establishments under the authority of the Cornwall

County Council ("the Council"), stating that if the applicant attempted

to obtain a post at an educational establishment, the Council should

be contacted before offering any employment to the applicant.

On 9 February 1993, the applicant was sent a letter from the

college in Cornwall ("the college") where he was working as an

examiner, requesting that he cease working there and arrange for

another examiner to be appointed in his place. The letter stated that

the reason for the request was:

"the investigation held under the agreed professional abuse

procedures which related to your previous employment at a college

in Cornwall."

The applicant contacted solicitors who wrote to the college on

26 March 1993 requesting clarification of the contents of the letter.

The college passed this letter on to the Council. The Council replied

on 24 May 1993, to the effect that there had been an "investigation"

under the auspices of its Area Child Protection Committee. No further

information was provided. The applicant instructed fresh solicitors

who wrote to the Council on 18 June 1993 asking for clarification of

the "investigation" and its outcome. By a letter dated 28 June 1993

the Council replied stating:

"it was as a result of an investigation under the professional

abuse procedures and a decision made formally under those

procedures by a properly constituted planning meeting that the

local education authority should be contacted before employment

was offered to him. It was in response to this letter that [the

college] advised that [the applicant comes] ... into contact with

the college students and it was thus that [the college] wrote to

[the applicant] in the terms advised by the County Council."

The applicant's solicitors sought emergency legal aid for the

applicant and instructed counsel. By an application dated

12 August 1993 the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of

the Area Child Protection Committee of the Council to blacklist the

applicant in respect of educational establishments operated by the

Local Education Authority. The applicant sought to quash the

blacklisting decision and to obtain compensation in respect of the

damage to his career.

At an oral hearing on 22 October 1993 Mr Justice Auld adjourned

the hearing of the application, upon the agreement of the Council to

provide the applicant with an oral hearing. However, following this

ruling on 22 October 1993 there was lengthy correspondence between the

solicitors of the applicant and the Council in relation to the

disclosure of documents. By 13 May 1994 the applicant's solicitors

were satisfied they had all the relevant material necessary for a

proper hearing. On 8 September 1994 the applicant's solicitors wrote

to the Council stating that in default of a hearing date being given

by the Council, they would make an application to the Court. In

response to this letter the Council informed the applicant that an oral

hearing by the Council would commence on 2 November 1994. The

applicant agreed to this date. The hearing took place on 2 and

3 November 1994 and 5 December 1994. On 16 December 1994 the Council

informed the applicant that the allegations made against him had been

found to be unsubstantiated.

On 7 July 1995 the judicial review proceedings were settled. The

Council agreed to pay the applicant's reasonable legal costs and also

to write to the various educational bodies, to whom it had previously

written in January 1993, stating that the allegations against the

applicant had proved unfounded. The applicant reserved the right to

seek damages.

On 9 September 1995 the applicant obtained legal aid to obtain

counsel's advice as to the merits of taking proceedings in negligence

against the Council seeking damages. Counsel advised that no such

action would lie in English law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant contends that his good reputation and ability to

carry on a profession were civil rights. He states that these were

interfered with by the Council without a prior hearing. The applicant

claims that the judicial review proceedings and the panel hearing in

1994 did not remedy the violation and these proceedings were not

conducted within a reasonable time. The applicant invokes Article 6

of the Convention in relation to these complaints.

The applicant further complains that he was provided with no

effective domestic remedy as he had no entitlement to damages. In this

respect the applicant invokes Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that he was blacklisted by the Council

without a prior hearing. The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention provides, so far as

relevant, as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations...

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

established by law..."

The Commission will assume for the purposes of the decision that

the blacklisting of the applicant, with the result that he was unable

to carry on his profession, and the subsequent judicial review of the

blacklisting, concerned a determination of his civil rights and thus

that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable.

The Commission notes that the applicant settled the judicial

review proceedings that he brought against the Council in July 1995.

In these circumstances the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a

violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention as regards

the substance of the proceedings.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant further complains that he was unable to bring

proceedings, separate from the judicial review proceedings, in order

to claim damages against the Council. When the applicant settled the

judicial review proceedings he reserved the right to seek damages, but

was subsequently advised by counsel that no such action would lie in

English law against the Council. The applicant invokes Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not guarantee a right

to damages. The Commission notes that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention extends only to disputes over civil rights and

obligations which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be

recognised under domestic law (see Eur. Court HR, 0 v. the United

Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, p.24, para. 54).

It is the applicant's contention that under domestic law there was no

right to claim damages against the Council in relation to their alleged

negligence in blacklisting the applicant.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

3. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention of the length of proceedings.

The Commission notes that there was a period of 16 months between

the commencement of judicial review and the finding that the

allegations against the applicant were unsubstantiated and then a

further seven months before the judicial review proceedings were

finally settled. The Commission notes that it was not until

8 September 1994 that the applicant insisted that the hearing ordered

by Mr Justice Auld be held, as prior to this the applicant's solicitors

had been involved in correspondence with the Council over the

disclosure of relevant documentation. The Commission does not consider

that in the circumstances such a period amounts to a breach of the

obligation to have a hearing within a reasonable time.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

4. The applicant complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention that he was unable to claim damages against the Council and

thus did not have an effective remedy.

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Commission recalls that there is no "civil right" to claim

damages recognised under domestic law to attract the application of

Article 6 para. 1 and that Article 13 (Art. 6-1, 13) does not go so far

as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such

to be challenged before a national authority (see. Eur. Court HR,

Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990,

Series A no. 172, p. 16, para. 36).

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

HODGETTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

HODGETTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM