Search
document

Document text Analytics

A.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20448/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1658

Document date: September 7, 1993

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

A.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 20448/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1658

Document date: September 7, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

PARTIAL

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20448/92

by A.T.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 7 September 1993, the following members being present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

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 10 October 1991

by A.T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 6 August 1993

under file No. 20448/92;

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 1949.

On 3 June 1988 the applicant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter

of his mother on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The plea

was accepted. On 1 July 1988 he was sentenced at the Central Criminal

Court, London, to an indeterminate period of life imprisonment. The

Common Serjeant, sentencing, made the following remarks.

"... I am confident [that a sentence of an indeterminate period

of life imprisonment] does not mean life, it will mean somewhat less.

How long you stay in prison depends upon your improvement and you

behave there, but in order that your medical condition shall be fully

appreciated by staff at hospital ... I shall invite the prison

authorities to consider whether, in the light of [... medical opinions

...] it would be possible to transfer you to a hospital where you could

receive proper treatment for your illness."

In 1991 the applicant applied for an extension of time in which

to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The single judge

refused and, on 29 July 1991, the full Court of Appeal also refused,

finding the approach of the trial judge to be entirely correct. By

letter of 8 June 1992 the applicant was informed that Section 34 of the

Criminal Justice Act 1991 applied to his case, and that the "tariff"

in his case, that is his period of confinement necessary for the

protection of the public, was to expire on 8 December 1992. Section

34 provides that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to

release prisoners to whom the Section applies in cases where, broadly,

the "tariff" has expired and the Board is satisfied that continued

confinement of the prisoner is no longer necessary. The applicant was

also told that he would be informed of the date on which his case would

be referred to the Parole Board under the "new arrangements". The

applicant states that he has been told by the prison Governor that he

may expect to wait one to two years for a hearing under the new system.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention

by virtue of ill-treatment when he was being taken into custody on 10

July 1987. He also alleges that, because he was in prison, he was

unable properly to defend himself in civil proceedings brought against

him by a former solicitor. In these civil proceedings a default

judgment was obtained against him on 10 November 1988. The applicant

alleges a violation of Article 8 in this respect.

The applicant also alleges that, after conviction, he was wrongly

diagnosed schizophrenic and that a life-sentence should therefore not

have been imposed. He alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the

Convention in that there exists no court which will consider the merits

of his appeal against what he calls the baseless medical evidence

presented at trial.

THE LAW

1. The applicant alleges violations of Article 3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8)

of the Convention in respect the alleged ill-treatment when he was

taken into custody, and impairment of his ability to defend civil

proceedings against him. However, the Commission is not required to

decide whether these allegations disclose any appearance of a violation

of these provisions, as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention provides

that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period

of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken."

In the case of these two complaints, assuming compliance with the rule

on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission must take as the

relevant date for the purpose of the six months rule 10 July 1987 in

connection with the allegation of ill-treatment, and 10 November 1988

in connection with the civil proceedings brought against the applicant.

The present application, however, was submitted to the Commission on

10 October 1991, that is, more than 6 months after the date of these

decisions. Furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose

the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted

or suspended the running of that period.

It follows that this part of the application has been introduced

out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3

(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 4

(Art. 5-4) of the Convention. The Commission considers it cannot, on

the basis of the file, determine whether there has been a violation of

Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention without the observations

of both parties.

This part of the application must therefore be adjourned.

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints under Articles

3 and 8 (Art. 3, 8) of the Convention, and

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant