Communicated on 14 October 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 9577/18 Matthew BROOKS against the United Kingdom lodged on 6 February 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns eleven days detention served by the applicant at the end of his criminal sentence, which was imposed by an Independent Adjudicator following disciplinary proceedings. The applicant brought proceedings against the Independent Adjudicator who had witnessed the incident but not recused himself from the disciplinary proceedings. By consent, an order was approved by the court quashing the Independent Adjudicator ’ s finding of the applicant ’ s guilt and award of additional days. However, the applicant pursed litigation proceedings arguing under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention he should also be awarded damages for his detention during the eleven days. The High Court accepted the applicant ’ s arguments; its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The applicant sought legal aid to appeal to the Supreme Court which was refused on 15 April 2019.

The applicant complains that his detention was unlawful under Article 5 § 1 and he is therefore entitled to compensation under Article 5 § 5. He also argues that there was a violation of Article 6 and as a result he is entitled to compensation in respect of that violation of that Article. Finally, he complains that he did not have a remedy available to him in violation of Article 13.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the mea ning of Article 34?

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic r emedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Taking into account Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III and Hammerton v. the United Kingdom , no. 6287/10, §§ 113-114, 17 March 2016, was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

5. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him , in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

6. Taking into account Nordbø v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), [ Committee ] , no. 67122/14, 16 January 2018, §§ 49-50 did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?