CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 septembre 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                                  Application No. 14474/88                                 by James Thomas RICKETT                                 against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 September 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, 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 August 1988 by James Thomas RICKETT against the United Kingdom and registered on 15 December 1988 under file No. 14474/88;           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 1966 and resident in Wallasey.   He is currently serving a three years prison sentence in H.M. Prison Walton, Liverpool.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           On the morning of 10 February 1988, the applicant and another person were ordered to return to their cells by a prison officer.   The applicant refused since he had not yet had breakfast.   The prisoner with the applicant was pushed into his cell.   The applicant submits that a prison officer then took him in a bear hug and that he was wrestled into his cell and onto the floor.   He was later taken to a solitary confinement cell.           On 11 February 1988, the applicant was informed by the Governor that he had been placed on report for assaulting an officer and would be tried by the Board of Visitors.           On 21 April 1988, the applicant appeared before the Board and pleaded not guilty.   The applicant asked if he could have legal representation but was informed by the chairman that if at any time he considered the applicant needed such representation he would adjourn for a lawyer to be appointed.   The prison officer alleging the assault was called to make his statement.   The applicant was allowed to put questions to the officer through the Board.   In answer to one of the applicant's questions, the officer stated that three other officers were present during the incident.   However, when one of the visitors requested the presence of these witnesses, the Board was informed that the officers were not in the prison at this time.           The applicant then called as witness the other prisoner involved in the incident, who, the applicant submits, confirmed his story.   At the conclusion of the proceedings, the applicant was told that the case against him was proven and that he was to be punished with loss of 56 days of remission.           The applicant petitioned the Home Secretary on 27 April 1988. By reply dated 7 September 1988, the Home Secretary stated that a formal review of the adjudication had taken place but no grounds for interfering with the disciplinary award had been found.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complained of a breach of Article 6 para. 3 (d) of the Convention in that the three prison officers who witnessed the incident were not called to give evidence.           He also invoked Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention, on the basis that the loss of remission would have the effect of postponing for a further two months his planned marriage on his release to his girlfriend, who is mother of his daughter.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 17 August 1988 and registered on 15 December 1988.           The Commission decided on 13 April 1989 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.   By letter dated 14 June 1989, the Government informed the Secretariat that the Secretary of State had decided to exercise his power under Rule 56 (1) of the Prison Rules to quash the finding of the Board of Visitors of 21 April 1988 and to remit the punishment awarded.           By letter dated 6 July 1989, the applicant's solicitors informed the Secretariat that in view of the steps taken the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION           The Commission notes that the punishment of 56 days of loss of remission imposed on the applicant has been remitted by the Secretary of State and that in view of this development the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his complaints.   The Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate a further examination of the case.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE LIST OF CASES.         Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                  (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)