Search
document

Document text Analytics

HARRISON v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11790/85 • ECHR ID: 001-408

Document date: November 9, 1987

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

HARRISON v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11790/85 • ECHR ID: 001-408

Document date: November 9, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 11790/85

by Claude HARRISON

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

9 November 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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 17 September

1985 by Claude HARRISON against the United Kingdom and registered

on 10 October 1985 under file No. 11790/85;

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 applicant is a British citizen born in 1923 and is

resident in Bridlington, Yorkshire. The facts as submitted by the

applicant may be summarised as follows:

After taking advice from a local Member of Parliament (M.P.),

the applicant applied for and received a small business grant from the

district council in connection with a photographic studio which he set

up on the ground floor of his house. In or about June 1984, he asked a

local newspaper to give him publicity. After a visit by a journalist

to the studio, articles appeared in several local and national

newspapers insinuating that the council grant, obtained through the

good offices of an M.P., had been used to finance a pornographic

business. As a result, the applicant's reputation as a photographer

plummeted and families were discouraged from using his studios for

pictures of their children.

The applicant sought advice as to what remedies he could seek,

but was informed by the Law Society in a letter of 14 November 1984

that there would be no point in applying for legal aid in order to sue

the journalist or newspapers for defamation because such proceedings

are excluded from the English civil legal aid scheme.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he is unable to take his defamation

complaint to the courts to obtain justice and to prove the innocence of

the press allegation, since the civil legal aid scheme does not extend

to defamation proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained of a denial of access to court in

respect of defamation proceedings which he wished to pursue against a

local newspaper, because legal aid is not available in England for

such litigation.

The right of access to court in the determination of a civil

right, such as the right to enjoy a good reputation, is an inherent

guarantee of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which

provides for "a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and

impartial tribunal" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Golder judgment of 21

February 1975, Series A no. 18, paras. 26 and 36).

The Commission does not consider it necessary to decide

whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies and introduced

his application within the time-limit provided for in Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention, for it finds the application anyway

manifestly ill-founded for the following reasons:

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) does not guarantee a right to

free legal aid in civil cases. Moreover, the Commission has held that

"even where legal aid may be available for certain types of civil

action ... given the limited financial resources of most civil legal

aid schemes, it is not unreasonable to exclude certain categories of

legal proceedings from this form of assistance. The fact that the

English legal aid scheme excludes assistance in defamation proceedings

has not been shown to be arbitrary" in certain cases (No. 10871/84,

Dec. 10.7.86 and No. 10594/83, Munro v. the United Kingdom, Dec.

14.7.87, both to be published in Decisions and Reports). The

Commission recognised in the said Munro case that "the nature of a

claim of defamation is such that it may easily be open to abuse. As a

result there is an objective risk that proceedings for defamation may

be unreasonably or abusively pursued. This is reflected in the common

practice of Member States of the Council of Europe to adopt special

procedures to guard against such abuses."

The question remains, however, whether apart from the legal

aid question, the present applicant has been denied effective access

to court. The Commission finds no evidence in the case file to

substantiate that this was so: The applicant appears to have made no

attempt to institute civil proceedings in person or, indeed, to obtain

preliminary legal advice as to the prospects of success of his claim.

In these circumstances, the Commission concludes that the

non-availability of legal aid for defamation proceedings in the

present case has not been shown to have deprived the applicant of

access to court, contrary to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

It follows that the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant