Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15397/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1206

Document date: January 8, 1992

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

P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15397/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1206

Document date: January 8, 1992

Cited paragraphs only



Application No. 15397/89

by A.P.

against United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 January 1992, the following members being present:

MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs.G. H. THUNE

SirBasil HALL

MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs.J. LIDDY

MM.L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÃœGER, 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 21 April 1989 by

A.P. against the United Kingdom and registered on 5 August 1989 under

file No. 15397/89;

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 1973.  He lives in

Redditch and is represented before the Commission by Ms. Rachel Hodgkin

of the Children's Legal Centre, London.

The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as

follows.

During the period October 1985 to March 1988 the applicant had

been convicted of a number of property and motoring offences.  For

these offences he had received a conditional discharge, a supervision

order, a fine, an attendance centre order, a care order and had had his

driving licence endorsed.

On 9 November 1988 at the age of 14, the applicant pleaded guilty

to taking and driving away two cars and to burglary of a school. A

welfare report to the court recommended intensive support in a

supervised activities centre under the supervision order.  Section 1

of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as supplemented by the Criminal

Justice Act 1988, provides, as far as relevant, as follows:

"1. General restrictions on custodial sentences

(4) A court may not-

(a) pass a sentence of detention in a young offender

institution; ... unless it is satisfied-

(i) that the circumstances, including the nature

and the gravity of the offence, are such that if

the offender were aged 21 or over the court

would pass a sentence of imprisonment; and

(ii) that he qualifies for a custodial sentence.

(4A) An offender qualifies for a custodial sentence if-

(a) he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial

      penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them;

      ...

      1A Detention in a young offender institution

(I) Subject to Section 8 below and to Section 53 of the

Children and Young Persons Act 1933, where-

(a) a male offender under 21 but not less than

14 years of age or a female offender under 21

but not less than 15 years of age is convicted

of an offence which is punishable with

imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or

over; and

(b) the court is satisfied of the matters

referred to in Section (4) above, the sentence

that the court is to pass is a sentence of

detention in a young offender institution....

1B Special provision for offenders under 17

(I) In the case of a male offender under 15 the maximum

term of detention in a young offender institution that a

court may impose is whichever is the lesser of-

(a) the maximum term of imprisonment the court

may impose for the offence; and

(b) 4 months."

The applicant was sentenced to a 3 months' custodial sentence at

a young offender institution.  He was detained for 6 weeks at

Campsfield House young offender institution at Kidlington.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant contends that, under English law, boys but not

girls of 14 years of age may be sentenced to imprisonment in a young

offender institution for up to 4 months for the commission of many

types of offences, including theft.  He alleges that if he had been a

girl, he could not have been deprived of his liberty in the way he was,

and that he has therefore been treated in a manner different from a

comparable female offender.  He considers that the difference in

treatment was based upon sex and had no objective reasonable

justification.

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention

taken together with Article 5.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 21 April 1989 and registered

on 5 August 1989.

On 4 December 1989 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the Government and to ask for written observations on

the admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's observations were submitted on 14 March 1990

after one extension in the time-limit and the applicant's observations

in reply were submitted on 17 July 1990 after two extensions in the

time-limit.

By letter dated 11 November 1991, the applicant's representative

informed the Commission that the applicant had agreed to settle the

case in light of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which abolishes short

custodial sentences for 14 year old boys and for an ex gratia payment

of £75 with reasonable legal costs.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the parties have agreed to settle the

case on the basis of a proposal of £75 and reasonable costs and in

light of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which now abolishes custodial

detention in respect of 14 year old boys.

In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant

does not intend to pursue his application before the Commission since

the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1

(a) and (b) of the Convention.  The Commission further considers that

respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require

it to continue the examination of the application.

It follows that the application may be struck off the list of

cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES

Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER)                                 (C. A. NØRGAARD)

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255