Search
document

Document text Analytics

MARLEY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12691/87 • ECHR ID: 001-778

Document date: December 7, 1990

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

MARLEY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12691/87 • ECHR ID: 001-778

Document date: December 7, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 12691/87

by Laurence MARLEY

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 7 December 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

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 Laurence MARLEY against the United Kingdom and registered on 2

February 1987 under file No. 12691/87;

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 facts submitted by the parties may be summarised as

follows.

The applicant, Mr. Laurence Marley, was an Irish citizen born

in 1945. He was represented in the proceedings before the Commission

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

on 2 April 1987.

The applicant was arrested at his home on 11 November 1986 at

06.35 hours. He was informed at the time of his arrest that he was

being 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 again informed

that he had been arrested under Section 11 of the 1978 Act and that he

could be held detained for up to 72 hours and could see a solicitor

only after 48 hours.

The applicant was interrogated at regular intervals during his

detention and was eventually released at 14.00 on 13 November 1986.

The applicant stated that he was not informed of the reasons

for his arrest except that he was being arrested under Section 11

of the 1978 Act as a suspect terrorist. Nor was he informed of any

charge against him.

The applicant 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 withdrew its

derogation under Article 15 of the Convention 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 of the 1978 Act 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 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.

The applicant further claimed that the lack of an enforceable

right to compensation constituted a breach of Article 13.

As regards domestic remedies, the applicant accepted that the

arresting officer had a suspicion that the applicant was a 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 16 November 1987 the Agent of the respondent Government

informed the Commission that the applicant had been killed on 2 April

1987. His lawyer informed the Commission on 9 May 1989 that the

applicant's widow, Kathleen Marley, wished to pursue the proceedings.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The applicant complained of his arrest and detention under

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

However, 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, the applicant complained about his

detention from 11 November 1986 to 13 November 1986. The Commission

considers that such an application is intimately linked to the person

of the deceased applicant. His widow cannot claim a sufficient legal

interest in the circumstances of the present case to justify such

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant