FARRANT, GLEAVES, COSTELLO, SMITH, STEVENS AND GRACE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
Doc ref: 7291/75;7365/76;8574/79;8991/80;9198/80;9551/81 • ECHR ID: 001-49267
Document date: February 12, 1987
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
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 reports 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 David Farrant,
Mr Roger Gleaves, Mr William Costello, Mr Richard Smith,
Mr Scott Stevens and Mr Harry Grace against the United Kingdom
(Applications Nos. 7291/75, 7365/76, 8574/79, 8991/80, 9198/80 and
9551/81);
Whereas on 10 January 1986 the Commission transmitted the said reports
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 cases having been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the
convention;
Whereas in their applications introduced between 3 March 1975 and
26 August 1981 the applicants complained of the censorship of their
correspondence by the British prison authorities, alleging a breach of
various articles of the convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible between
11 October 1979 and 4 March 1985 and in its reports adopted on
18 October 1985 it expressed the opinion by a unanimous vote that there
had been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention in respect
of the stopping of certain letters written by each of the applicants,
that in Mr Costello's case the censorship of certain of the
applicant's correspondence constituted a breach of Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention, that in Mr Smith's case
there was a breach of Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention by virtue
of an absence of effective domestic remedies for his censorship
complaints, that in Mr Steven's case the censorship of certain of the
applicant's letters was in breach of Article 6, paragraph 1
(art. 6-1), of the convention and that there had been a breach of
Article 13 (art. 13) of the convention by virtue of an absence of
effective domestic remedies for the applicant's Article 8 (art. 8)
complaints;
Agreeing with the opinions 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 in
relation to the cases of Mr Farrant, Mr Costello, Mr Smith and
Mr Stevens;
Whereas the Commission has stated that the merits of these
applications resemble the test case of "Silver and others" and whereas
in its Resolution DH (85) 15 in the "Silver and others" case the
Committee was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom of the
measures taken in consequence of the judgment of the Court, which
information was summarised in the appendix to that resolution;
Whereas, during the examination of these cases, the Government of the
United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that it accepted
the Commission's reports, that, following the decision of the House of
Lords in Raymond v. Honey (1983) AC1, the prohibition on private
criminal prosecutions by prisoners was removed, that the restriction
on prisoners' correspondence in respect of private criminal
prosecutions was abolished and that in the case of Mr Farrant, the sum
of £188,10 for the applicant's legal costs was paid to the applicant's
legal representatives;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the convention,
a. Decides:
i. that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the
convention in respect of the stopping of certain letters written by
each of the applicants;
ii. that in Mr Costello's case there has been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention;
iii. that in Mr Smith's case there has been a violation of Article 13
(art. 13) of the convention;
iv. that in Mr Steven's case there has been a violation of Article 6,
paragraph 1, and Article 13 (art. 6-1, art. 13) 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 these cases.