J.K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 18627/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1700
Document date: October 11, 1993
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
Application No. 18627/91
by J.K.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 October 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
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 June 1991 by
J.K. against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 August 1991 under
file No. 18627/91;
Having regard to:
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Commission;
- the Commission's decision of 2 December 1991 to communicate the
case to the respondent Government without requesting observations
and to adjourn it pending the outcome of Applications Nos.
14553/89 and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United
Kingdom;
- the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in those
applications on 26 May 1993;
- information provided by the Government on 7 May 1993;
- information provided by the applicant's representatives on
5 October 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant was a British citizen, born in 1968. He was killed
by gunmen at Castlerock, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland, on 25
March 1993. At the time of lodging his application, he was resident
in Maghera, Northern Ireland.
He was represented before the Commission by Messrs. J.C. Napier
and Co., solicitors, Belfast, now incorporated in the firm of Ms. P.
Drinan, solicitor.
The facts of the present case, as originally submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested under Section 14 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 at approximately 06.00 hours
on 25 February 1991. He was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre
where he was detained until approximately 13.00 hours on 1 March 1991.
He was then released without charge. The applicant stated that he was
not brought before any judicial authority and that he was interrogated
six times a day on 25, 26, 27 and 28 February and three times on 1
March 1991.
On 23 December 1988, prior to the applicant's arrest, the United
Kingdom had informed the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
that they derogated from the requirements of Article 5 of the
Convention in respect of Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism
(Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. This provision was replaced by
Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
1989, pursuant to which the applicant was detained.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleged that his arrest and detention were contrary
to Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He claimed that he
was arrested merely for the purposes of detention and interrogation.
The applicant submitted that, contrary to Article 5 para. 4 of
the Convention, he was precluded from bringing any proceedings to
determine the lawfulness of his detention. The applicant also
contended that, contrary to Article 5 para. 5 and Article 13 of the
Convention, he had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of
the other alleged breaches of Article 5.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 12 June 1991 and registered on
2 August 1991. The Commission decided on 2 December 1991 to
communicate the case to the respondent Government and to adjourn it
pending the outcome of two similar applications challenging the United
Kingdom's derogation of 23 December 1988: Applications Nos. 14553/89
and 14554/89, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom (Comm. Report
3.12.91), which were subsequently referred to the European Court of
Human Rights.
On 7 May 1993 the Government informed the Commission that the
applicant had been killed by gunmen at Castlerock, County Londonderry,
Northern Ireland, on 25 March 1993.
The Court gave its judgment in the Brannigan and McBride cases
on 26 May 1993 (to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The
applicant's representatives were asked whether the applicant's estate
wished to maintain the case and, if so, to submit comments on how the
applicant's case could be distinguished from those of Brannigan and
McBride.
On 5 October 1993 the applicant's representatives informed the
Commission that in view of the applicant's death "it is not proposed
the matter should proceed any further".
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant complained of a denial
of his right to liberty, without redress, on his arrest and detention
under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)
Act 1989. Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right to liberty,
but the Court has held that detention of the duration experienced by
the applicant is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention, given the
valid derogation made by the United Kingdom on 23 December 1988. In
view of the derogation, it also held that compensation under Article
5 para. 5 of the Convention was not called for, and that detainees in
these circumstances had a remedy at their disposal in the form of an
application for habeas corpus which satisfied the requirements of
Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention in particular, and Article 13 in
general (Eur. Court H.R., Brannigan and McBride judgment of 26 May
1993, to be published in Series A no. 258-B). The Commission also
notes that in view of the applicant's death his estate does not propose
to proceed with the application any further.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the estate does
not intend to pursue the petition, within the meaning of Article 30
para. 1 (a) of the Convention, and that there are no reasons of a
general character concerning respect for Human Rights, within the
meaning of the last sentence of Article 30 para. 1, which require the
retention of the application.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)