Search
document

Document text Analytics

SAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12681/87 • ECHR ID: 001-288

Document date: May 11, 1988

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

SAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12681/87 • ECHR ID: 001-288

Document date: May 11, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 12681/87

by Christine SAMS, Ian SAMS and Trevor SAMS

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 19 December

1982 by Christine SAMS, Ian SAMS and Trevor SAMS against the United

Kingdom and registered on 29 January 1987 under file No. 12681/87;

Having regard to:

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

of the Commission;

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

the application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibility and merits;

- ii -

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

26 April 1985 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicants on 6 September 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 qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicants'

representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, United Kingdom citizens, are a mother and

her two sons. They live in County Durham. The second and third

applicants were born in 1966 and 1970 respectively and they both

attended the same state comprehensive school. The applicants are

represented before the Commission by Messrs. Binks, Stern and

Partners, Solicitors, London.

The second applicant was caned by school teachers on eight

occasions between 11 June 1980 and 10 November 1982, the punishment

varying from one to six strokes.

The third applicant was caned on or around 26 May 1982. The

first applicant alleged that she was informed by the school headmaster

that if she and the third applicant would not accept the punishment he

would be suspended for a time from school. They claimed that the third

applicant received three strokes of the cane, whereas the Government

stated that he received one stroke.

The first applicant claimed to have made it clear to the

school that she objected to the corporal punishment of her children.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained to the Commission that the corporal

punishment constituted violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the

Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 19 December 1982 and first

registered under file No. 11006/84 along with 5 other cases. It was

then re-registered under a separate file No. 12681/87 on 29 January

1987. After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

4 December 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 26 April 1985,

to which the applicants replied on 6 September 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.

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 applicants.

The applicants' representatives responded on 6 April 1988 with

a proposal that £3000 be paid for the punishment of the second

applicant and the alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention, that

£1500 be paid for the punishment of the third applicant and the

further alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that £1500

be paid for the continued corporal punishment of the children after

the first applicant had informed the school of her opposition to such

punishment and the alleged breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. A

request was also made for the payment of reasonable legal costs.

Nevertheless the applicants' representatives stressed that if, in

spite of arguments they had advanced in support of their claims, the

Commission felt that the Government's offer was reasonable, the

applicants 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 applicants' 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 clients.

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 applicants have 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

applicants 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 applicants do 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