Human Rights Court of the Council of Europe
| Published date | 01 January 1975 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837503900108 |
| Date | 01 January 1975 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
of the
Europe
Human Rights Court
Council of
ON the 11th and 12th of October 1974 there was argued at Stras-
bourg the appeal of the United Kingdom Government in the case
of Sidney Elmer
Golder-this
was under the auspices of
the
Council
of Europe before the European Court of
Human
Rights (Droits de
I'Homme).
The
background is that at present this country is a signatory of
the European Convention of
Human
Rights, and Golder, who was a
prisoner in England under sentence, relied on a violation of art. 6.
He had wished to see a solicitor and seek advice about a defamation
action, the object being to clear his reputation after being wrongfully
accused of assault on a prison officer during adisturbance. Under the
prison rules here such aprisoner is not entitled to communicate in
connection with legal business, except with leave of the Home Secretary.
Such leave having been refused, Golder managed to communicate with
the Commission of
Human
Rights, claiming that in determination of
his civil rights and obligations "
....
everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within areasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law".
The
Commission made an offer of mediation between Golder and
the United Kingdom Government but when this had no effect they
reported against
our
Prison Rule 34 (8) requiring leave from the
Home
Secretary for a prisoner to see, inter alia, a lawyer. Under art. 48 of
the
Convention, the United Kingdom (via the Foreign Office) applied
(or appealed) to the European Court.
The
initial contentions were that access to national courts referred
to cases pending before imprisonment, and that it was not unreasonable
for Golder to await discharge before taking proceedings. Counsel (Sir
F. Vallat, QC. and M. G. Slynn) elaborated these points for two days;
they were assisted by two advisers and a diplomat as agent.
The
Com-
mission had three delegates and a secretariat. These groups sat at either
extreme of a Court of fifteen judges sitting in bow formation with the
Italian president in
the
center. Almost every country in Western Europe,
also Turkey, was represented (the Danish representative being a woman).
Counsel spoke in English, and those requiring it had instantaneous
translation through headphones.
The
hearing was public in
the
buildings
of the Council of Europe.
The
United Kingdom's case was partly affected by the previous
case there, when a man named Knecht had been injured in gaol and
originally prevented from suing in spite of the advice of the Parlia-
mentary Commissioner (ombudsman). He had applied to Strasbourg
in 1971, and this had led to a money sestlement and leave to sue being
allowed for physical injury cases in the future. G. T. Zellick, writing
73
To continue reading
Request your trial