BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ezeh and Connors & Ors against the United Kingdom - 60682/00 [2011] ECHR 1660 (14 September 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1660.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1660 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Resolution
CM/ResDH(2011)1781
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Ezeh and Connors against the United Kingdom;
Whitfield and others against the United Kingdom;
Black against the United Kingdom; and
Young against the United Kingdom
(Ezeh and Connors, Application No. 39665/98+, judgment of 9 October 2003—Grand Chamber;
Whitfield and Others, Application No. 46387/99+, judgment of 12 April 2005, final on 12 July 2005;
Black, Application No. 56745/00, judgment of 16 January 2007, final on 16 April 2007; and
Young, Application No. 60682/00, judgment of 16 January 2007, final on 16 April 2007)
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 lack of independence and impartiality in prison disciplinary proceedings in the cases of Whitfield and Others, Black and Young, and the lack of legal representation in all cases (violations 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 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(2011)178
Information
on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Ezeh
and Connors; Whitfield and Others; Black
and Young against the
United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
The Whitfield and others, Black, and Young cases concern the lack of independence and of objective impartiality, and consequently, the unfairness of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants while serving prison sentences, between 1997 and 2000, and adjudicated by prison governors (violations of Article 6§1). All applicants were sentenced to additional days’ imprisonment ranging from 3 to 35 days.
The European Court noted that “persons answerable to the Home Office (whether as prison officer, governor or controller in the applicants’ prisons) drafted and laid the charges against the applicants, investigated and prosecuted those charges and determined the applicants’ guilt or innocence together with their sentences. It cannot therefore be said that there was any structural independence between those with the prosecuting and adjudicating roles” (§45 of the Whitfield and Others judgment; see also §20 of the Black judgment and §§43-44 of the Young judgment).
All cases concern the fact that the prison adjudicating bodies concerned denied the applicants the right to be legally represented during prison disciplinary proceedings (violation of Article 6§3c).
I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
|
Name and application number |
Pecuniary damage |
Non-pecuniary damage |
Costs and expenses |
Total |
|
Ezeh and Connors, Application No. 39665/98+ |
-- |
-- |
44 000 EUR Less 4 294.79 EUR legal aid |
39 705.21 EUR |
|
Paid on 23/04/2004 with interest |
||||
|
Whitfield and others, Application No. 46387/99+ |
-- |
3 000 EUR |
10 000 EUR |
13 000 EUR |
|
Paid with interest |
||||
|
Black, Application No. 56745/00 |
-- |
-- |
1 799 EUR |
1 799 EUR |
|
|
Paid on 10/05/2007 |
|||
|
Young, Application No. 60682/00 |
-- |
-- |
2 799 EUR |
2 799 EUR |
|
Paid within the time-limit |
||||
b) Individual measures
In the Ezeh and Connors case, as well as in the Black and Young cases, the European Court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted in itself, sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. In the Young case, the applicant was released after serving her sentence.
In the Whitfield and others case, the applicants (Mr Whitfield, Mr Pewter, Mr Gaskin and Mr Clarke) were released after serving their sentences. The disciplinary punishment of the fourth applicant (Mr Clarke) was quashed by the Secretary of State.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II. General measures
1) Violation of Article 6§1
The new Prison (Amendment) Rules 2002, in force since 15 August 2002, provide that in serious prison disciplinary cases where prisoners risk a penalty of additional days’ detention, the case is referred by the prison governor to an adjudicator approved by the Secretary of State, who inquires into the charge. Thus structural independence between prosecution and adjudication in such proceedings is assured (see §88, of the Grand Chamber judgment in Ezeh and Connors).
2) Violation of Article 6§3c
Following the judgment of the European Court of 15 July 2002 in Ezeh and Connors (confirmed by the Grand Chamber on 9 October 2003), in 2002 the Prison (Amendment) Rules 2002 came into force providing that in serious prison disciplinary cases where prisoners risk a penalty of additional days’ detention, prisoners are given the opportunity to be legally represented (see §54, of the Grand Chamber judgment in Ezeh and Connors).
3) Publication
The judgment of the European Court in the Ezeh and Connors case has been published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2004) 39 EHRR 1. The judgment of the European Court in the Whitfield and Others case has been published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2005) 41 EHRR 44.
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies