Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20433/92

by Mary McCOURT

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, President of the First Chamber

E. BUSUTTIL

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. M. de SALVIA, Secretary to the First 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 1 May 1990 by Mary

McCourt against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 August 1992

under file No. 20433/92;

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 British citizen born in 1943 and resident in

Wigan. She is represented by Mr. Robin Makin, a solicitor practising

in Liverpool. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows.

On or about 9 February 1988, the applicant's 22 year old daughter

Helen was murdered. Her body has never been found. A suspect, S., was

arrested and convicted of murder on 14 March 1989. He was sentenced

to life imprisonment.

The applicant is Helen's next of kin and the administratrix of

her legal estate.

The applicant has suffered great distress and has searched

continually but without success for her daughter's body. S. has not

complied with her request to inform the authorities as to the location

of her daughter's body.

On 7 May 1991, the applicant wrote to the Home Office requesting,

inter alia, an assurance that S. would not be considered for parole and

requesting that she be informed with regard to any parole decisions.

By letter dated 3 June 1991, the Home Office replied that her

letter and accompanying document had been placed on S.'s file and would

be seen by the Parole Board when it reviewed his case. She was

informed that at the earliest his case would be reviewed in 2001 and

that the Probation Service would contact her before S.'s release with

a view to meeting any concern and could, for example, place

restrictions as to where S. was to live, go or work on release.

The applicant's representatives wrote to the Home Office again

on 7 August 1991 requesting, inter alia, information as to the "tariff"

and an explanation of why no approval of the "tariff" was sought from

the victim's family.

By reply dated 29 August 1991, the Home Office confirmed that the

tariff was 16 years and stated that it was by no means certain that S.

would be released then. It stated that the applicant could write at

any time giving her views and that these would be placed before the

Parole Board.

By further letter of 30 September 1991, the Home Office stated

that a victim's family cannot be expected to take an impartial view and

that it would be wholly inappropriate to involve them in the tariff

setting process. It confirmed that if S.'s release was ever in

prospect, the Probation Service would contact her.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the

Convention in that she has no "right" to participate in the sentencing

process, no "right" to be informed as to when S. will be released and

no "right" to express views to those taking decisions as to his

release.

The applicant also complains in the context of Article 8 of the

absence of any provision for "bereavement" damages where the deceased

child is over 18 years old. She submits that this does not reflect the

enormity of the loss and is a lack of respect.

The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention in respect of

the lack of a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal to establish the whereabouts of her

daughter's body.

The applicant submits that the lack of procedure to establish the

whereabouts of Helen's body includes her rights under Article 9 of the

Convention.

In the context of Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant

complains that she has no "right" to impart information as to her

wishes in determining the effective length of S's sentence. She also

submits she should enjoy a positive right to receive information as to

his release.

The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the

Convention that she has no remedy in respect of the above complaints.

Finally, she complains that there has been discrimination

contrary to Article 14 of the Convention in that "bereavement" is not

recognised because of her daughter's status as an unmarried adult, in

that no procedure is available to trace her daughter's body since it

has no status as "property" of commercial value and that her right to

respect for family life is not recognised because Helen's 'status' is

now that of a 'deceased person'.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention that she has no right as such to be consulted in the

sentencing or parole process.

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic well-being of

the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the

protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the

rights and freedoms of others."

The Commission notes that while the applicant has no "right"as

such to be involved in the parole process the Home Office have a policy

of accepting the submissions made by victims' families and placing them

before the Parole Board. The Home Office also has a policy of

informing relatives of the possible release of a prisoner in order to

meet any concerns that they might have. As regards the failure to

involve the applicant in setting the tariff, the Commission also

recalls the explanation by the Home Office that victims' families do

not have the requisite impartiality for involvement in the sentencing

procedures. In light of these considerations , the Commission finds

that the applicant's complaints fail to disclose any lack of respect

for or any interference with her right to respect for family life.

The applicant also complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the

Convention of the absence of provision for damages awardable in civil

proceedings in respect of an adult child who dies in such

circumstances. She submits that this in itself constitutes a lack of

respect.

The Commission notes that there is in fact no indication on the

file that the applicant had or would have any intention of suing the

convicted murderer of her daughter for damages in civil proceedings.

In any event, however, the Commission finds that the criminal law

recognises the heinousness of the act committed in this case and

provides for it a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. The

Commission does not consider that Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention

can be interpreted as requiring in addition that civil proceedings take

a particular form or provide damages to extended categories of

relatives (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., X and Y v. the Netherlands

judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91).

The Commission concludes that the applicant's complaints are

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also invokes Articles 6, 9, 10, 13 and 14

(Art. 6, 9, 10, 13, 14) of the Convention.

The Commission has examined the applicant's complaints as they

have been submitted by her. It finds however that they fail to disclose

any appearance of a violation of the rights guaranteed under the

Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

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 a.i. President of the First Chamber

(M. de SALVIA) (J.A. FROWEIN)

Menu

McCOURT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

McCOURT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI