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

DAVIDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12689/87 • ECHR ID: 001-876

Document date: April 11, 1991

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

DAVIDSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12689/87 • ECHR ID: 001-876

Document date: April 11, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

                      Application No. 12689/87

                      by Brendan DAVISON

                      against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 11 April 1991, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  G. SPERDUTI

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  A. WEITZEL

                  J.-C. SOYER

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             MM.  L. LOUCAIDES

                  J.-C. GEUS

                  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

             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 27 January 1987

by Brendan DAVISON against the United Kingdom and registered on 2

February 1987 under file No. 12689/87;

        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, Mr.  Brendan Davison, was an Irish citizen born

in 1955.  He was represented in the proceedings before the Commission

by Mr.  P. J. Finucane, solicitor, Belfast.  The applicant was killed

on 25 January 1988.

        The applicant was arrested at his home on 21 October 1986 at

06.10 hours by a police officer.  He was arrested under Section 11 of

the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 on grounds of

being a suspect terrorist.  Section 11(1) states that "Any constable

may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of being a

terrorist".

        He was taken to Castlereagh Police Office and informed that

under Section 11 of the 1978 Act he could be held detained for up to

72 hours and could see a solicitor after 48 hours.*  The applicant

states that he was interrogated at regular intervals during his

detention and was released at 16.20 hours on 22 October 1986.

        He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, apart from

being told that he was arrested under Section 11 of the 1978 Act as a

suspect terrorist.  Nor was he informed of any charge against him.  He

was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to

exercise judicial power or given any opportunity for release on bail.

COMPLAINTS

        The applicant pointed out that the United Kingdom Government

withdrew its derogation under Article 15 on 22 August 1984.

        He complained that his arrest was in breach of Article 5 paras.

1 and 2 of the Convention.  In particular, he stated that his arrest

was solely for the purpose of interrogating him and that his

detention was not justified under Article 5 para. 1 (a), (b), (c)

or (d).

        He further complained that Section 11 permits arrest and

detention solely on grounds of suspicion, as opposed to the requirement

of reasonable suspicion under Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.

        He further complained that, since the provisions of the

Convention are not part of the domestic law, he was not able to bring

any proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his arrest and

detention, in breach of Article 5 para. 4, and that he was therefore

denied an enforceable right to compensation in breach of Article 5

para. 5.

__________

* Section 11 (3) states as follows:

------------

"A person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of

the arrest for more than seventy-two hours after his arrest, and

section 132 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and

section 50(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland)

1986 (requirement to bring arrested person before a magistrates'

court not later than forty-eight hours after his arrest) shall not

apply to any such person."

        The applicant further claimed that the lack of an enforceable

right to compensation constitutes a breach of Article 13.

        As regards domestic remedies, the applicant accepted that the

arresting officer had a suspicion that the applicant was a suspected

terrorist and that the arrest was executed lawfully under Northern

Ireland law.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 27 January 1987 and

registered on 2 February 1987.

        On 7 October 1987 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to adjourn

the case.

        On 20 September 1988 the agent of the respondent Government

informed the Commission that the applicant had been killed on 25 January

1988.  Requests to the applicant's lawyer on 6 October 1988 and 18

December 1990 as to whether the application should be continued and,

if so, who were the next of kin, remained unanswered.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

        The applicant complained of his arrest and detention under

Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

        The Commission recalls that the successor of a deceased

applicant cannot claim a general right that the examination of an

application be continued by the Commission (cf.  No. 8261/77, Kofler v.

Italy, Comm.  Rep. 9.10.82, D.R. 30 p. 5).  The essential point is

whether, bearing in mind the nature of the particular application, the

successor can be considered as having a sufficient interest to justify

the further examination of the application on his or her behalf.

        In the present case, there has been no reply to questions as

to whether the application should be continued.  The Commission notes

that the complaint related to the applicant's detention from 21 to 22

October 1986.  Such an application is intimately linked to the person

of the deceased applicant.  Even if a successor had been presented,

such successor could not have claimed a sufficient legal interest in

the circumstances of the present case to justify further examination.

        The Commission concludes therefore that it is no longer

justified to continue the examination of this application, within the

meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.  It further

considers that respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention

does not require the continuation of the examination.

        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS 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