Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 23975/94

by I. S.-B.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 28 June 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

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 October 1993

by I. S.-B. against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 April 1994

under file No. 23975/94;

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 United Kingdom citizen born in 1938. Since

1966 he has been serving a life sentence. At present he is detained

at Ashworth Hospital in Liverpool. Before the Commission the applicant

is represented by Mr. Robin Makin, solicitor of E. Rex Makin & Co.,

Liverpool.

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

summarised as follows.

Between 1986 and 1988 the applicant supplied the Manchester

Police with information which led to the recovery of a murder victim.

No further charges were brought against the applicant in this

connection.

In 1989 the applicant learned that the police officer to whom he

had furnished the information and who had led the investigation had

opted for early retirement and intended to write a book on the

applicant's case.

In July 1989 the applicant informed the Attorney General and the

Director of Public Prosecutions that the publication of the book,

envisaged for September 1989, and its serialisation in a newspaper

would be tantamount to a public trial by media. He considered that by

writing the book the police officer had breached confidence and

violated the Official Secrets Act 1911. The applicant was informed

that it was premature for the authorities concerned to decide whether

any legal action in this respect was appropriate.

In September 1989, following a second intervention by the

applicant after the publication of the book, the Greater Manchester

Police Authority instituted proceedings for breach of confidence and

copyright against the author of the book and the publishers. The

Attorney General considered that no investigation with a view to

proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 was necessary.

The applicant considered that he had a community of interest with

the Greater Manchester Police Authority in restraining the author of

the book and the publishers. In 1990 and 1991 he proposed that an

action contemplated by him should be consolidated with the proceedings

commenced by the Police Authority. He was informed that the

proceedings in question were between the Police Authority on the one

hand and its retired officer and others involved in the publication on

the other hand.

The proceedings related to (i) the constitutional position of

members of the Police Force and the conduct of former police officers

after leaving the Force (ii) breach of copyright, and (iii) the

proprietary interests in information supplied to the police. They had,

in the Police Authority's view, no bearing on any possible claim which

the applicant might have.

As to the proceedings for breach of copyright and confidence, an

out-of-court settlement was reached with the publishers and the author

of the book in May and June 1993. The settlement consisted in payment

of a part of the profits from the publication to the Police Authority.

The amount of the retired police officer's profits and the sum he

actually paid to the Police Authority were not officially revealed to

the public.

On 4 June 1993 the applicant complained to the Police Authority

that no action had been taken in advance of publication of the book in

question and of the absence of any action in respect of its subsequent

serialisation and partial republication. By letters of 10 and

22 June 1993 the applicant was informed that since he was not a party

to the proceedings against the retired police officer and the

publishers, he had no interest in those proceedings. The Police

Authority therefore decided to take no further action on the points

raised by the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the competent authorities either

took legal action belatedly (in respect of the publication of the book)

or failed to do so at all (in respect of serialisation of the book and

its partial republication). He alleges that the out-of-court

settlement resulting in financial gain of the Police Authority was

unlawful. The applicant considers that the police officer who wrote

the book should have been subject to a punitive penalty. He further

alleges that financial details relating to the police officer's total

profits resulting from disclosure of the confidential information and

the amount of money the latter paid to the Police Authority should be

revealed to the public.

The applicant also alleges that by the publication of the

confidential information involving his person he was subjected to

public trial by police and media without any official charges being

brought. He considers that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the

competent authorities, he had an interest in relation to the

information published in the book since it dealt with his case. He

draws the conclusion that the proceedings introduced against the police

officer determined also his rights.

The applicant alleges a violation, on the above facts, of his

rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 28, 30 and 45 of the

Convention and by Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7.

THE LAW

1. The applicant alleges that he has been subjected, by publication

of the book and its subsequent serialisation, to public trial by police

and media. He considers that since the book was about his case the

proceedings introduced against persons responsible for its publication

concerned also the determination of his rights. He alleges a violation

of Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) of the Convention.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention guarantees to

everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, the right to a fair and public

hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial

tribunal established by law. Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the

Convention guarantees the presumption of innocence and para. 3

(Art. 6-3) of the same Article provides for minimum rights in regard

to persons charged with a criminal offence.

The Commission notes that no further criminal proceedings were

brought against the applicant and the disclosure of confidential

information involving the applicant's person cannot be regarded as the

determination of a criminal charge against the applicant or as a public

trial of him within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention.

As to the complaint that the proceedings against the police

officer determined the civil rights of the applicant, the Commission

notes that the proceedings were brought by the Greater Manchester

Police Authority and concerned (i) the constitutional position of

members of the Police Force and the conduct of former police officers

after leaving the Force (ii) breach of copyright, and (iii) the

proprietary interests in information supplied to the police.

The applicant was not a party to those proceedings which, as the

Police Authority pointed out, did not relate to the rights, if any, of

the applicant arising from the publication of the book. The applicant

at all times remained free to introduce civil proceedings of his own

to assert any such rights but has not done so.

In these circumstances the Commission considers that, as regards

the applicant, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention is inapplicable to

the proceedings introduced by the Police Authority.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further alleges that his rights guaranteed by

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention were violated by publication of

the confidential information concerning his person which he had

supplied to the police.

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, as far as relevant,

guarantees to everyone the right to respect for his private life.

In the present case the applicant voluntarily confided to the

police, in the framework of a criminal investigation, information

related to facts which were the object of that investigation. Although

he may have been entitled to expect that the information would be used

only for purposes related to the investigation, it does not appear from

the documents submitted that the authorities concerned undertook

formally a duty of confidence vis-à-vis the applicant in this respect.

The Commission notes that the applicant has not, in any event,

introduced an action for breach of confidence or defamation against the

author of the book or its publishers. In these circumstances the

question is raised whether the applicant has exhausted the domestic

remedies available to him.

The Commission does not, however, find it necessary to determine

this question since the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the

following reasons.

The applicant is serving a life sentence after having been

convicted of murder and the information which the applicant supplied

to the police and which forms the subject matter of the book is related

to the location of the body of one of his victims. Even if the

information was not already in the public domain and may be regarded

as having been supplied by the applicant in confidence, the Commission

finds that the information did not relate to the sphere of private life

within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. Nor has

the applicant shown in what other respect the contents of the book

interfered with respect for his private life within the meaning of that

Article (Art. 8).

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 further complains of violations of his rights under

Articles 3, 5, 9, 28, 30 and 45 (Art. 3, 5, 9, 28, 30, 45) of the

Convention and under Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-3, P7-4).

The Commission has examined such complaints but finds that insofar as

they have been substantiated and are within its competence, they do not

disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set

out in the Convention or in its Protocols.

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. Finally, the applicant complains of a violation of his rights

under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention on the grounds that there

existed no effective remedy in respect of his claims under the

Convention.

The Commission recalls that Article 13 (Art. 13) of the

Convention guarantees an effective remedy to everyone alleging a

violation of the Convention, so long as there exists an arguable claim

of such violation. For the reasons given above, the Commission finds

that the applicant has no arguable claim of a violation of his rights

guaranteed by the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is also 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.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

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

Menu

I. S.-B. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

I. S.-B. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI