Search
document

Document text Analytics

JARMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11648/85 • ECHR ID: 001-207

Document date: May 12, 1988

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

JARMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11648/85 • ECHR ID: 001-207

Document date: May 12, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 11648/85

by Janice JARMAN

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 May 1988, 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

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 12 September

1984 by Janice JARMAN against the United Kingdom and registered on

9 July 1985 under file No. 11648/85;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 to bring

the application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibilty and merits;

- ii -

- the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February 1988;

- the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicant's

representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen and a nurse by profession.

She is represented before the Commission by Messrs. Binks, Stern and

Partners, Solicitors, London.

The case concerns the corporal punishment of two of her sons

at a state school.

On 13 October 1983, one of the applicant's sons was given one

stroke of the cane on each hand for failing to attend a detention

period. His hands were swollen and bruised as a result. The next

day, the applicant informed the school of her objection to any form of

corporal punishment of her two children. Consequently the boys were

suspended from school until the family accepted the school's

disciplinary code. The applicant refused to send them to another

school two and a half miles away. The applicant was prosecuted,

convicted and fined £10 in respect of each child on 20 July 1984 for

failing to ensure their attendance at school. The children were taken

into care, the care order only being revoked on 4 December 1984 after

the applicant had agreed that they attend an alternative school where

corporal punishment was no longer practised.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained to the Commission of a violation of

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 September 1984 and

registered on 9 July 1985.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

12 March 1987. It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the

respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their

written observations on its admissibility and merits.

However, observations were not submitted and the Government

expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the possibility of

resolving the case.

The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the

proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals

for the resolution of the application.

On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer:

The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act

1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state

schools. Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits

of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £4500 to

the applicant.

The applicant's representatives responded on 6 April 1988

with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the caning and an alleged

breach of Article 3 of the Convention, £2000 and £1000 be paid for the

respective boys' long suspensions from school and the alleged breach

of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (first sentence), £750 be paid for the

refusal of the education authorities to respect the applicant's

philosophical objections to corporal punishment and the alleged breach

of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (second sentence) and £500 be paid for

the breaking up of the family when the boys were taken into care and

an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention. A request was also

made for the payment of reasonable legal costs. Nevertheless the

applicant's representatives stressed that if, in spite of arguments

they had advanced in support of her claims, the Commission felt that

the Government's offer was reasonable, the applicant would be prepared

to accept it.

By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their

offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view

was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

The applicant's representatives responded on 22 April 1988

requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising

that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their client.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex

gratia sum of £4500 to resolve this application. It also notes

that the applicant has not rejected this offer, should the Commission

consider it reasonable. The Commission finds the Government's offer

adequate in all the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the

applicant may be deemed to have accepted it. Furthermore, the

Commission considers, given the reform of the law on corporal

punishment in state schools, that there are no reasons of a general

character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate

the further retention of this case. The Commission, therefore,

concludes that the issues in the case are resolved and that, in the

circumstances, the applicant does not intend to pursue this

application (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of

Procedure). (Rule 44-1-b)

For these reasons, the Commission

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