Search
document

Document text Analytics

CHESTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14747/89 • ECHR ID: 001-748

Document date: October 1, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

CHESTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14747/89 • ECHR ID: 001-748

Document date: October 1, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 14747/89

by Peter CHESTER

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

1 October 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

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 22 October 1988

by Peter CHESTER against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 March

1989 under file No. 14747/89;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 6 July 1989 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibility and merits;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government

on 20 December 1989 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 2 March 1990;

- the applicant's letter of 20 July 1990;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1954

and detained in H.M. Prison Wakefield, Yorkshire, where he is serving

a sentence of life imprisonment.

He is represented before the Commission by Messrs. Andrew &

Co., Solicitors, Lincoln.

This is the applicant's third application to the Commission.

His first, No. 9488/81, primarily concerning censorship of prisoners'

correspondence, was the subject of a decision by the Committee of

Ministers that the applicant had suffered a violation of Article 8 of

the Convention (Resolution DH (86) 6). His second, No. 12395/86, also

concerning censorship of his correspondence, is pending before the

Committee of Ministers, awaiting a decision under Article 32 of the

Convention.

In the present application the applicant complained that while

he had been in the segregation unit he had been unable to attend

prison church services. He claimed to be a victim of a violation of

Article 9 of the Convention. The Government stated that the prison

chapel was an insecure, temporary building to which, for security

reasons, prisoners like the applicant, removed from association with

others, could not have access. A new secure chapel is scheduled to be

built in 1991. However, the prison chaplain conducts religious

services in the applicant's segregation unit. The applicant may

attend these services and may be visited by the chaplain privately in

his cell, or by a pentecostalist minister.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 22 October 1988 and

registered on 8 March 1989. After a preliminary examination of the

case by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of

the application on 6 July 1989. It decided to bring the application

to the notice of the respondent Government and invite the parties to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits. The

Government submitted their observations, after an extension of the

time limit, on 20 December 1989. The applicant replied on 2 March

1990, having been granted legal aid by the Commission on

16 February 1990.

On 20 July 1990 the applicant addressed a further

communication to the Commission. He complained that, despite the fact

that the United Kingdom had been found by the Convention organs to

have breached his right to respect for correspondence in the past, the

Commission had failed to secure his rights or provide redress. He now

considered that he was wasting his time bringing applications to the

Commission because he regarded the Convention machinery as inadequate

to secure his rights or effectively uphold the Convention. He

regretted therefore that he could no longer pursue this present

application to the Commission.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes the applicant's disappointment with the

Convention machinery and his wish to withdraw his application. It

concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition,

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character

affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,

which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article

30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention. In this context the Commission

notes the private facilities for worship available to the applicant

and the Government's plans to build a secure chapel for communal

worship starting next year.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

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