Search
document

Document text Analytics

R. AND A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14074/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1107

Document date: December 14, 1989

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

R. AND A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14074/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1107

Document date: December 14, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 14074/89

by J.R. and W.A.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 14 December 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 20 July 1988 by

J.R. and W.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 1 August

1988 under file No. 14074/88;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The first applicant, J.R., is a citizen of the United Kingdom

who was born in India in 1927 and is normally resident in Fribourg,

Switzerland. The second applicant, W.A., is also a citizen of the

United Kingdom, born in 1928 and normally resident in London.

Before the Commission the applicants are represented by

Messrs. James and Sarch, solicitors, London.

The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the

applicants, may be summarised as follows:

On 17 October 1985 the plaintiffs in civil proceedings against

companies in which the applicants were involved, applied for the

committal to prison of the applicants for an alleged breach of

undertakings given to the court. The application was rejected on 17

February 1986, and a further motion was made on 5 September 1986,

allegedly supported by evidence of an inadmissible nature.

Interlocutory proceedings took place to determine the admissibility

of certain evidence, ultimately finding that the committal

proceedings took their character from the proceedings on which they

were based and were accordingly "civil proceedings". The rules on

admissibility of evidence in civil cases therefore applied.

On 9 March 1988, the Vice-Chancellor, in the trial of the

motion of committal for contempt of court, found the applicants guilty

of contempt and committed them to prison in absentia for periods of 2

years and of 6 months respectively from the date of their

apprehension.

The applicants are still at large.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complained that the committal order against them

constituted an unlawful deprivation of their liberty, contrary to

Article 5 of the Convention.

2. The applicants also complained that the admission of hearsay

evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being

subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of

their right to be presumed innocent, contrary to Article 6 para. 2 of

the Convention.

3. The applicants complained further that the admission of hearsay

evidence of witnesses in the contempt proceedings without their being

subject to cross-examination by the defence constituted a breach of

Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 20 July 1988 and registered

on 1 August 1988.

On 14 March 1989 the Commission decided that, in accordance

with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, the application

should be brought to the notice of the respondent Government and they

should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility

and merits of the applicants' complaints that they were not able to

cross examine the evidence admitted in the contempt proceedings.

On 26 June 1989 the respondent Government submitted their

observations.

By letter of 4 July 1989 the applicants were invited to submit

observations in reply before 22 September 1989.

In October 1989, after the expiry of the time limit, the

applicants were reminded of the time limit and replied "it is

anticipated that the complainants may be able to resolve the matters

which are subject to the above applications without further pursuing

the application to the European Court... to serve a reply at this

stage would seriously prejudice this position. We therefore request

that further time be allowed the compliance in order to serve their

reply...". That letter was dated 16 October 1989.

On 20 October 1989 the applicants wrote "we apologise for

not having previously reverted to you and for the reasons set out in

[our letter of 16 October 1989] we confirm we request an extension to

20 December 1989."

On 6 November 1989 the applicants were informed that it was

proposed to consider the application at the Commission's session

beginning on 4 December 1989, and were told that the President had

instructed them that, if they wished to make any submissions, they

should do so by 30 November 1989 at the very latest. The applicants

were warned about the consequences under Rule 44 para. 1 of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure if the Commission concluded that they

did not intend to pursue the application.

The applicants acknowledged receipt on 15 November 1989 but

have not submitted any observations.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission finds that the circumstances of the present

case, namely the applicants' failure to comply with the Commission's

request to submit observations in reply before 22 September 1989, and

their subsequent failure to submit observations in reply before the

new and final time limit of 30 November 1989, lead to the conclusion

that they do not intend to pursue their application.

The Commission considers that there are no reasons of a

general character affecting the observance of the Convention which

necessitate the further examination of this case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant