Stevens v. the United Kingdom



Application No. 12769/87

by Scott STEVENS

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

6 September 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

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 5 April 1986 by

Scott STEVENS against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 February

1987 under file No. 12769/87;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 15 July 1988 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibility and merits ;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

3 November 1988 ;

- the failure of the applicant to submit observations in reply ;

- the information provided by the applicant's representative on

5 June and 26 July 1989 ;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1945, who at the

time of lodging his application was detained in HM Prison Wandsworth,

London. He is represented before the Commission by Mr. A. Logan,

Solicitor, Messrs George E. Baker and Co., Solicitors, Guildford.

This is his fifth application to the Commission.

In the present case he complained to the Commission of

conditions of detention and treatment in prison, in particular the

censorship of 16 of his letters, the verification of his

correspondence with his solicitors, the photocopying of his mail,

strip search procedures, access to the prison governor, books and

exercise facilities, conditions of detention in police cells, the

retention of some of his clothes, wrist watch, food, saccharin and

red pens, and an alleged assault. He was discharged from prison on

9 September 1988.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 5 April 1986 and registered

on 9 February 1987. After a preliminary examination of the case by the

Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the

application on 15 July 1988. It decided to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42

para. 2(b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of parts

of it. The Government submitted their observations on 3 November

1988 The applicant was granted legal aid on 3 February 1989 by the

President of the Commission.

The applicant has not submitted any observations on

admissibility and merits. On 5 June 1989 the applicant's

representative requested an adjournment of the application sine die as

the applicant had been arrested, charged and convicted of further

criminal offences, but he did not know the applicant's whereabouts.

The Commission refused this request on 8 July 1989 and set a final

deadline of 31 August 1989 for the submission of the applicant's

observations. On 26 July 1989 the applicant's representative informed

the Commission that the applicant had been conditionally released from

detention and had absconded, failing to appear in court when he should

have done. He still had no idea of the applicant's whereabouts.

Nothing has been heard from or about the applicant since.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant has not submitted any

observations on the admissibility and merits of his application and

that his present whereabouts are unknown. In these circumstances, it

concludes that the applicant has lost interest in his application to

the Commission. Moreover, it finds no reasons of a general character

affecting the observance of the Convention which require the further

examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)