Rickett v. the United Kingdom



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)