Search
document

Document text Analytics

BRADY, HOSEIN, LORD AVEBURY, RAYMOND, STEWART, SLADE AND McQUEENIE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 8575/79;9086/80;9257/81;9282/81;9422/81;9428/81;9917/82 • ECHR ID: 001-49261

Document date: June 27, 1986

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

BRADY, HOSEIN, LORD AVEBURY, RAYMOND, STEWART, SLADE AND McQUEENIE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 8575/79;9086/80;9257/81;9282/81;9422/81;9428/81;9917/82 • ECHR ID: 001-49261

Document date: June 27, 1986

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 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 Ian Brady, Mr Arthur Hosein,

Lord Avebury, Mr Steven Raymond, Mr Joseph Stewart, Mr Anthony Slade

and Mr Henry McQueenie against the United Kingdom (Nos. 8575/79,

9086/80, 9257/81, 9282/81, 9422/81, 9428/81 and 9917/82);

Whereas on 27 September 1985 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 16 January 1979 and

9 March 1982, the applicants complained of the censorship of their

correspondence by the British prison authorities and alleged breaches

of Article 8 (art. 8) of the convention, Mr Raymond also complaining

of the denial of access to court, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1

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

Whereas the Commission declared the applications admissible on

4 March 1985 and in its reports adopted on 2 July 1985 it expressed

the opinion that there had been breaches of Article 8 (art. 8) of the

convention by unanimous votes in each case, and that there had been a

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

Mr Raymond's case;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

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

Whereas during the examination of these cases the Government of the

United Kingdom informed the Committee of Ministers that it accepted

the opinions expressed by the Commission in its reports;

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;

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 these cases;

ii. that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1), in the case of Mr Raymond;

b. Decides that no further action is called for in these cases.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant