CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 septembre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1DB7E044 { width:333.26pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .sDBC8015 { width:180.56pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s7E56E163 { width:223.21pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .s1ABCED17 { width:4.66pt; display:inline-block } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .s894696E7 { width:4pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADF7EA2 { width:10.65pt; display:inline-block } .s27BFB239 { width:23.95pt; display:inline-block }     EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS     FIRST CHAMBER         Application No. 28787/95       Barry Woolaghan       against       the United Kingdom         REPORT OF THE COMMISSION     (adopted on 15 September 1998)       TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                     Page         INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1     PART I            STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ........................ 2     PART II :        SOLUTION REACHED .............................. 3               INTRODUCTION       1.   This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Mr Barry Woolaghan against the United Kingdom on 1 June 1995.   It was registered on 28 September 1995 under file No. 28787/95.   2.   The applicant was represented by Ms Deborah Still, a solicitor of Rochdale Law Centre, Rochdale, Lancashire.   3.   The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their Agent, Mr Martin Eaton.   4.   On 2 July 1997 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the application 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 15 September 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     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       B. CONFORTI       I. BÉKÉS       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       C. BÎRSAN       K. HERNDL       M. VILA AMIGÓ     Mrs   M. HION     Mr   R. NICOLINI         PART I       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     7.   The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1969 and resident in Accrington.   8.   On 11 February 1992 the applicant was committed by the Hyndburn Magistrates' Court to 40 days in prison, suspended on term of payment of  6 per fortnight, for his failure to pay the community charge (poll tax).   9.   The applicant fell behind with his payments.   On 25 August 1992 the Magistrates' Court issued a warrant of committal to prison for 29 days following a hearing at which the applicant was not present.   It later transpired that a letter to the applicant informing him about the date of the hearing had been sent by ordinary post to the applicant's last known address which he had left.   10.   On 21 July 1993 the applicant surrendered into custody.   He served 10 days in prison.   On 6 August 1993 his application for release on bail and for leave to apply for judicial review before the High Court was granted.   11.   On 2 December 1994 the High Court quashed the order of 25 August 1992 for the applicant's committal to prison.   The Court found that there had not been sufficient proof of service of the notice of the hearing, and that the magistrates, having considered that the applicant had a duty to inform of his change of address, had relied on a presumption that he had known of this duty.   However, the presumption that everyone knows the law was inapplicable.   There was no evidence that the applicant had known of his duty.   Accordingly, the basis upon which the magistrates relied before proceeding in the matter had been unsound.   12.   Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention that his detention was unlawful, under Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention that English law did not provide for a possibility to obtain compensation for the unlawful detention and under Article 6 of the Convention that legal aid was not available in the proceedings before the Magistrates' Court.           PART II       SOLUTION REACHED     13.   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.   14.   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.   15.   By letters of 3 and 19 February 1998 the parties indicated their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.   The respondent Government indicated that they had made a proposal to the   applicant's representative.   16   By letters of 9 July 1998 the applicant notified the Commission that the Government had agreed to pay  3,000 and his reasonable costs before the Commission.   By letter of 9 September 1998 the applicant informed the Commission that a cheque in settlement and for costs had been received by him.   17.   At its session on 15 September 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.   18.   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