Search
document

Document text Analytics

BYRNE, McFADDEN, McCLUSKEY AND McLARNON AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 7879/77;7931/77;7935/77;7936/77 • ECHR ID: 001-49269

Document date: March 20, 1987

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

BYRNE, McFADDEN, McCLUSKEY AND McLARNON AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 7879/77;7931/77;7935/77;7936/77 • ECHR ID: 001-49269

Document date: March 20, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention

relating to the applications lodged by Mr Edward Byrne,

Mr Cornelius McFadden, Mr John McCluskey and Mr Liam McLarnon against

the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 7879/77, 7931/77, 7935/77 and

7936/77);

Whereas on 28 January 1986 the Commission transmitted the said report

to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention

has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European

Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the

convention;

Whereas in their applications lodged between 1 April and 23 May 1977

the applicants complained of a hindrance of their right of access to

court, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the

convention, and of an unjustified interference with their right to

respect for private life, ensured by Article 8 (art. 8) of the

convention, the first applicant also complaining of an unjustified

interference with his right to respect for correspondence, ensured by

Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention;

Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible on

6 March 1985 and, after having decided on 12 October 1985 to join

them, in its report adopted on 3 December 1985 expressed the opinion

by a unanimous vote, that the interference with the first applicant's

correspondence to his solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8

and 6, paragraph 1 (art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention, by a vote of

twelve to one that no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of

the convention arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant

facilities for an independent medical examination, and, by a unanimous

vote, that the prevention of the applicants' confidential

consultations with their solicitors was in breach of Article 6,

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;

Having examined the proposals made by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 3 (art. 31-3), of the convention;

Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Government of the

United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers:

i. that it accepted the opinion expressed by the Commission in its

report, as well as the proposals made under Article 31, paragraph 3

(art. 31-3), of the convention,

ii. that following the decision of the Divisional Court in R v.

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Anderson (1984)

1ALL ER920, the simultaneous ventilation rule was disapplied from

correspondence with legal advisers in relation to proposed legal

proceedings,

iii. that the revised Standing Order No. 5 provided that visits with a

legal adviser acting in his professional capacity should be allowed

out of hearing of prison officers provided that the subject to be

discussed was disclosed to the Governor beforehand,

iv. that, however, following the decision in Anderson's case, it was

now no longer necessary that the subject to be discussed be disclosed

in advance,

v. that the sum of £4 322.50 for the applicants' legal costs was paid

to the applicants' legal representatives;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the convention,

a. Decides that:

i. the interference with the first applicant's correspondence to his

solicitors constituted a breach of Articles 8 and 6, paragraph 1

(art. 8, art. 6-1), of the convention;

ii. no breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention

arose from the refusal to allow the first applicant facilities for an

independent medical examination;

iii. the prevention of the applicants' confidential consultations with

solicitors was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the

convention;

b. Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the

Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for

in this case.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant