Search
document

Document text Analytics

POLLARD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28189/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2873

Document date: April 12, 1996

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

POLLARD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28189/95 • ECHR ID: 001-2873

Document date: April 12, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 28189/95

by Keith POLLARD

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 12 April 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 26 July 1995 by

Keith POLLARD against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 August

1995 under file No. 28189/95;

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, a United Kingdom citizen born in 1966, resides in

Preston, Lancashire. Before the Commission he is represented by Ms.

Deborah Still, a solicitor practising in Preston.

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

summarised as follows.

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

on 31 March 1990. Three liability orders were issued on 30 January

1991, 25 March and 1 July 1992.

Since April 1993 the applicant was in receipt of income support.

On an unspecified date the Hyndburn Borough Council sought to

commit the applicant to prison for non payment of community charge.

On 14 July 1993 the applicant appeared before the Hyndburn Magistrates'

Court. At the hearing he was represented by a solicitor. The

applicant explained that he had considerable debts and that he was

unable to meet the payments. It was also argued on the applicant's

behalf that if the Court were minded to find wilful refusal or culpable

neglect then they should suspend any terms of imprisonment on term.

On the same day the Hyndburn Magistrates' Court committed the

applicant to 72 days in prison for failure to pay community charge.

The applicant served 21 days in prison. He applied for, and was

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

the High Court.

On 25 January 1995, at an oral hearing, the High Court delivered

an order quashing the applicant's committal to prison. The grounds

therefor were that the imprisonment order had been delivered without

proper regard to possible alternatives to immediate imprisonment. The

judgment stated inter alia that the Magistrates had made an order

"which as a matter of law they had no power to make".

On 25 July 1995 the applicant signed a power of attorney

authorising his solicitor to represent him before the Commission.

On 26 July 1995 the solicitor wrote a cover letter and posted the

application to the Commission.

COMPLAINTS

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

that his detention was unlawful in that the court failed to enquire

into the applicant's means before issuing the committal order. The

court thus failed to meet a condition precedent to the issuance of the

committal order and, therefore, acted in excess of jurisdiction.

The applicant also complains under Article 5 para. 5 of the

Convention of the lack of compensation for the unlawful detention.

Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant submits that

legal aid was not available at the committal hearing.

THE LAW

The applicant raises complaints under Articles 5 and 6

(Art. 5, 6) of the Convention concerning his committal to prison for

failure to pay community charge.

The Commission has examined whether the applicant has complied

with the six months' rule under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.

It recalls the Convention organs' case-law according to which, as

regards the time limits under the Convention, the first day of a time-

limit is considered to start on the day following the final decision,

whereas "months" are calculated as calendar months regardless of their

actual duration. An application is considered to be introduced within

the time-limit if it was posted on or before the last day of the six

months period (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Oberschlick judgment of 23 May

1991, Series A no. 204, p. 21 paras. 38 - 40; Istituto di Vigilanza

judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 265-C, p. 35 para. 14;

Appl. No. 21034/92, Dec. 9.1.95, D.R. 80, p. 87).

The Commission notes that the final decision in the present case,

within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, was the

High Court's judgment of 25 January 1995 and that it was pronounced on

the same day in open court. It follows that the six months' time-limit

runs from 26 January 1995, the day following the final decision, and

that its last day is 25 July 1995.

The Commission further notes that the applicant has signed a

power of attorney authorising his representative before the Commission,

on 25 July 1995. However, his application was posted on 26 July 1995,

which is also the date of the solicitor's cover letter.

It follows that the application has been introduced out of the

six months' time-limit contrary to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention and has to be rejected under Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant