CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 5 juillet 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 19526/92                                Nicholas WARD                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 5 July 1993)                              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 on Human Rights by Nicholas Ward against the United Kingdom on 18 November 1991. It was registered on 18 February 1992 under file No. 19526/92.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Prince Evans, solicitors from London.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Audrey Glover of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   3.     On 8 January 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights (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."   4.     The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 5 July 1993 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.   5.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:                MM.   F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS              Mrs. J. LIDDY              MM.   M. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                   G.B. REFFI                   B. CONFORTI                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1963.   He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment at H.M. Prison Albany on the Isle of Wight.   7.     The applicant received a discretionary life sentence on 18 January 1985 for manslaughter, having been found to be of diminished responsibility.   He did not appeal against conviction or sentence.   8.     His "tariff" expired in or about 1988, since when, according to a letter of 27 October 1991 from the Home Office, the applicant's continued detention has depended solely on the risk that he presents.   9.     The applicant's case was reviewed by the Local Review Committee (LRC) in September 1988.   When the case came before the Parole Board in January 1989, the Board did not recommend release.   10.    The applicant went before the LRC again in January 1991.   He states that all the reports on him were excessive.   By letter dated 30 July 1991, the Home Office informed him that the Parole Board had not recommended his release.   He was also informed that his case was to be referred to the LRC again in July 1994.   11.    The applicant complained to the Commission that he had no possibility of having the continued lawfulness of his detention reviewed, as required by Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention.   The applicant further complained under Article 5 para. 5 that he had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of the above breach.   12.    On 8 January 1993, the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaints under Article 5 paras. 4 and 5 of the Convention.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   13.    Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission 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.    Between January and April 1993 there were negotiations between the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.   16.    By letter dated 8 February 1993 the Government proposed to settle the case on the basis of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (in force since October 1992) which provision is intended to give the Parole Board the powers and functions of a court. They stated that the applicant's case would be considered by the Parole Board sitting in its new capacity on 27-28 April 1993 and offered to pay the applicant's legal costs. By letter dated 26 April 1993, the applicant accepted this offer.   17.    At its session on 5 July 1993 the Commission found that the parties had reached 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.   Secretary to the First Chamber     Acting President of the First Chamber          (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                       (F. ERMACORA)