Application No. 11648/85
by Janice JARMAN
against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 May 1988, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     G. SPERDUTI
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     G. JÖRUNDSSON
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     H. VANDENBERGHE
                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
                Sir  Basil HALL
                MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                     C.L. ROZAKIS
                Mrs.  J. LIDDY

                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 12 September
1984 by Janice JARMAN against the United Kingdom and registered on
9 July 1985 under file No. 11648/85;

        Having regard to:

     -  reports provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure
        of the Commission;

     -  the Commission's decision of 12 March 1987 to bring
        the application to the notice of the respondent Government
        and invite them to submit written observations on its
        admissibilty and merits;

- ii -

     -  the proposal put forward by the Government on 3 February 1988;

     -  the qualified acceptance of that proposal by the applicant's
        representatives on 6 and 22 April 1988;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The applicant is a British citizen and a nurse by profession.
She is represented before the Commission by Messrs.  Binks, Stern and
Partners, Solicitors, London.

        The case concerns the corporal punishment of two of her sons
at a state school.

        On 13 October 1983, one of the applicant's sons was given one
stroke of the cane on each hand for failing to attend a detention
period.  His hands were swollen and bruised as a result.  The next
day, the applicant informed the school of her objection to any form of
corporal punishment of her two children.  Consequently the boys were
suspended from school until the family accepted the school's
disciplinary code.  The applicant refused to send them to another
school two and a half miles away.  The applicant was prosecuted,
convicted and fined £10 in respect of each child on 20 July 1984 for
failing to ensure their attendance at school.  The children were taken
into care, the care order only being revoked on 4 December 1984 after
the applicant had agreed that they attend an alternative school where
corporal punishment was no longer practised.


        The applicant complained to the Commission of a violation of
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.


        The application was introduced on 12 September 1984 and
registered on 9 July 1985.

        After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on
12 March 1987.  It decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its
Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the
respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit their
written observations on its admissibility and merits.

        However, observations were not submitted and the Government
expressed the wish on 5 August 1987 to explore the possibility of
resolving the case.

        The Commission decided on 12 December 1987 to suspend the
proceedings and to invite the Government to make specific proposals
for the resolution of the application.

        On 3 February 1988 the Government made the following offer:
The Government recalled the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act
1986 and the abolition of corporal punishment in United Kingdom state
schools.  Moreover, without prejudice to their position on the merits
of the application, they proposed an ex gratia payment of £4500 to
the applicant.

        The applicant's representatives responded on 6 April 1988
with a proposal that £3000 be paid for the caning and an alleged
breach of Article 3 of the Convention, £2000 and £1000 be paid for the
respective boys' long suspensions from school and the alleged breach
of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (first sentence), £750 be paid for the
refusal of the education authorities to respect the applicant's
philosophical objections to corporal punishment and the alleged breach
of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (second sentence) and £500 be paid for
the breaking up of the family when the boys were taken into care and
an alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention.  A request was also
made for the payment of reasonable legal costs.  Nevertheless the
applicant's representatives stressed that if, in spite of arguments
they had advanced in support of her claims, the Commission felt that
the Government's offer was reasonable, the applicant would be prepared
to accept it.

        By letter of 19 April 1988 the Government stated that their
offer consisted of a global ex gratia payment which in their view
was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.

        The applicant's representatives responded on 22 April 1988
requesting the Commission to decide the matter, whilst emphasising
that the Government's offer had not been rejected by their client.


        The Commission notes the Government's offer of a global ex
gratia sum of £4500 to resolve this application.  It also notes
that the applicant has not rejected this offer, should the Commission
consider it reasonable.  The Commission finds the Government's offer
adequate in all the circumstances of the case.  Accordingly, the
applicant may be deemed to have accepted it.  Furthermore, the
Commission considers, given the reform of the law on corporal
punishment in state schools, that there are no reasons of a general
character affecting the observance of the Convention which necessitate
the further retention of this case.  The Commission, therefore,
concludes that the issues in the case are resolved and that, in the
circumstances, the applicant does not intend to pursue this
application (Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure). (Rule 44-1-b)

        For these reasons, the Commission


   Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

          (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)