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
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)