Search
document

Document text Analytics

G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10172/82 • ECHR ID: 001-191

Document date: May 11, 1988

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

G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10172/82 • ECHR ID: 001-191

Document date: May 11, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 10172/82

by G.

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 28 June 1982 by

G. against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 October 1982 under

file No. 10172/82;

Having regard to:

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

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 4 October 1984 to bring

the application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibilty and merits;

- ii -

10172/82

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

16 January 1985 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 18 February 1985;

- the Commission's decision of 8 May 1987 to invite the

respondent Government to submit further observations on

the admissibility and merits of the case;

- the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February

1988;

- the applicant's acceptance of that proposal on 5 May 1988;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

10172/82

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1944,

resident in E. and the mother of two boys. She lodged the application

on her own behalf and that of her eldest son, born in 1966. The

applicant is represented before the Commission by Mrs. P. McBain,

Messrs. Wilford McBain, Solicitors, London.

In or about May 1980, the son, then aged 14, was beaten on the

bottom with a rubber-soled shoe by his state school teacher for

alleged misbehaviour during a lesson. On 5 June 1980, he was caned on

his bottom by a subordinate teacher for throwing small stones.

The applicant complained to the school about these incidents

of corporal punishment and unsuccessfully sought assurances from the

education authorities that her children would not be so punished.

The applicant obtained legal aid for counsel's opinion on a civil

claim for damages for assault and battery. Counsel concluded on

22 December 1982 that such a claim would have little prospects of

success and further legal aid was refused by the Law Society on

16 April 1982.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained to the Commission that the corporal

punishment of her eldest son and the absence of assurances that

neither of her children would be so punished in the future constituted

violations of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol

No. 1 to the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 28 June 1982 and registered

on 28 October 1982.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

4 October 1984. It decided to bring the application to the notice of

the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 42 (2) (b) of its Rules of

Procedure and to invite them to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application.

The Government's observations were received on 16 January

1985, to which the applicant replied on 18 February 1985.

On 8 May 1987, the Commission decided to invite the respondent

Government to submit further observations on the admissibility and

merits of the application pursuant to Rule 43 para. 3 (a) of the Rules

of Procedure.

However, further 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.

10172/82

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 £3000 to

the applicant.

On 3 May 1988, the applicant's representative accepted the

offer.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes the Government's offer to pay the

applicant an ex gratia sum of £3000 to resolve the application and

the applicant's acceptance of the offer. 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).

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