[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Beet & Ors v the United Kingdom - 22520/93 [2010] ECHR 1857 (15 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1857.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1857

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)140¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Beet and others against the United Kingdom and

Lloyd and others against the United Kingdom

(Beet and others, Application No. 47676/99+, judgment of 1 March 2005, final on 6 July 2005 and

Lloyd and others, Application No. 29798/96+, judgment of 1 March 2005, final on 6 July 2005)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the unlawful detention of the applicants for failure to pay local tax or court fines (violation of Article 3, paragraph 1), the absence of any enforceable right to redress in respect of that detention (violation of Article 5, paragraph 5) and the absence of legal aid or representation (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3c) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)140

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Beet and others against the United Kingdom and

Lloyd and others against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the unlawfulness of the detention of 28 applicants, for periods ranging from one to 50 days, ordered by magistrates’ courts from 1993-1997, following their failure to pay sums due either for local taxes or for court-imposed fines following criminal convictions.

The European Court found that these judicial orders, subsequently quashed by the High Court, were in violation of domestic legislation or established case-law requiring, inter alia, that courts conduct a proper inquiry into means in cases of failure to pay, have proper regard to alternatives to imprisonment in cases involving fines and ensure that proper summonses have been issued so that the persons concerned may be represented by counsel (violations of Article 5§1).

The cases also concern the lack of an enforceable right to compensation in domestic law for the detention of the 28 applicants (violations of Article 5§5). Finally, the cases concern the lack of legal aid and representation at the hearings which decided the committal to prison, as well as the magistrates’ courts failure to provide information on the existence of such a right to two applicants under 21, even though this is required under domestic law (violations of Article 6§§1 and 3c).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

In both cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The judicial orders detaining the applicants were quashed by the High Court.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

Violations of Article 5§1: these were due to an erroneous application by the magistrates courts of domestic legislation and established case-law. The judicial orders detaining the applicants were quashed by the High Court.

Violations of Article 5§5: from 02/10/2000 the Human Rights Act 1998 provides anyone imprisoned in violation of Article 5 a right to claim compensation (see Final Resolution ResDH(2001)119 concerning the case of Chahal).

Violations of Article 6§§1 and 3c: following the European Court’s judgment in the Benham case (Final Resolution DH(97)506), and after the facts of the present cases, the United Kingdom enacted Regulation 3(2) of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997, No. 997). Under that provision, with effect from 1/06/1997, any person whose financial resources are such as to make then eligible is entitled to assistance by way of representation in proceedings before a magistrates’ court in which thus is likely to be “at risk of a term of imprisonment being fixed in his case”, as a result of their failure to pay any sum which they have been ordered to pay.

Publication and Dissemination: The Beet and others judgment was published in the Times Law Reports (10/03/2005) and in the European Human Rights Reports (2005) 41 EHRR 23. The Lloyd judgment is available on a number of free, legal websites under the citation [2006] RA 329, [2005] ECHR 147.

Guidance was also issued to magistrates courts via Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Justices’ Clerks’ Society indicating that imprisonment for non-payment is a remedy of last resort and including a checklist of factors to be taken into account where consideration is being given to committing a defaulter to a period of imprisonment.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.