CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 mars 1998

.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 }                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                            FIRST CHAMBER     Applications Nos. 24842/94, 25276/94, 25278/94,   25282/94, 25284/94 and 26063/94            Anthony Redfern, Albert Ashley, Darren Gratton,          Paul Hogg, Daryl Meikleham and Adrian Green                                 against                           the United Kingdom                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                     (adopted on 10 March 1998)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page         INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1       PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3       PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4                              INTRODUCTION       1.    This Report relates to the applications introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Anthony Redfern (No. 24842/94), Albert Ashley (No. 25276/94), Darren Gratton (No. 25278/94), Paul Hogg (No. 25282/94), Daryl Meikleham (No. 25284/94) and Adrian Green (No. 26063/94), introduced respectively on 26 October 1994, 31 March 1994, 24 May 1994, 7 July 1994, 12 July 1994 and 5 December 1994 against the United Kingdom.   The applications were registered on 17 November 1994, 23 September 1994, 23 September 1994, 23 September 1994, 23 September 1994 and 21 December 1994 respectively.   2.    The applicants were represented by Clyde, Chappell & Botham, solicitors practising in Stoke-on-Trent.   3.    The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr Eaton.   4.    On 10 September 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the applications admissible.   It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to      it:        a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake      together with the representatives of the parties an examination      of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the      effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all      necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the      Commission;        b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of      the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly      settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights      as defined in this Convention."   5.    The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 March 1998 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.     6.    The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             MM    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President                N. BRATZA                E. BUSUTTIL                A. WEITZEL                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs   J. LIDDY           MM    L. LOUCAIDES                B. CONFORTI                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL                M. VILA AMIGÓ           Mrs   M. HION           Mr    R. NICOLINI                                 PART I                         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     7.    The applicants are United Kingdom citizens.   At the relevant time they were aged under 21.   8.    Each of the applicants, in separate proceedings, was committed by a Magistrates' Court to a term of imprisonment in respect of his failure to pay community charge (poll-tax) and was imprisoned.   Each of the applicants then obtained release on bail and leave to apply for judicial review.   In the judicial review proceedings the committal orders were quashed.   In the cases of some of the applicants it was noted, inter alia, that the magistrates had failed to consider, or to state in open court, the reasons for rejecting methods of extracting payment other than imprisonment as required in cases of persons aged under 21, in accordance with Sections 1(5) and 1(5A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 in conjunction with Regulation 42(7) of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.   9.    None of the applicants was legally represented at the committal hearing.   10.   Before the Commission the applicants complained under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention that their detention was unlawful as the magistrates, having failed to comply with Sections 1(5) and 1(5A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and with Regulation 42(7) of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 and with other legal requirements, were acting in excess of jurisdiction. The applicants also complained under Article 5 para. 5 that they could not receive compensation for the unlawful detention as the law provided for such a possibility only in cases where the magistrates had acted in bad faith, and under Article 6 of the Convention that legal aid was not available before the magistrates.                             PART II                            SOLUTION REACHED     11.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   12.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   13.   By letters of 30 January, 3 and 16 February, and 3 March 1998 the parties informed the Commission that they had reached a friendly settlement on the following terms:        "Without prejudice to the issue of liability the Government would pay the following sums to the applicants in respect of their imprisonment:        Mr Redfern      £ 4,000      Mr Ashley       £ 1,250      Mr Gratton      £ 4,000      Mr Hogg         £ 2,500      Mr Meikleham    £ 3,000      Mr Green        £ 1,750        The Government also agreed on the same basis to pay £ 15,700 in costs of the Strasbourg proceedings relating to these six applications.        The Government drew attention to the amendments to the legal aid arrangement introduced in implementation of the judgment in Benham v. the United Kingdom (Eur. Court HR, judgment of 10 June 1996)."   14.   The Government informed the Commission that the above amounts had been paid on 22 December 1997.   15.   At its session on 10 March 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   16.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.        M.F. BUQUICCHIO                        M.P. PELLONPÄÄ         Secretary                             President    to the First Chamber                  of the First Chamber