The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
2 December 1986, the following members being present:

              MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  G. JÖRUNDSSON
                  G. TENEKIDES
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  B. KIERNAN
                  A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  J. C. SOYER
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
             Mrs. G. H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
              Mr. F. MARTINEZ

              Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 8 January 1986 by
R.M. against the United Kingdom and registered on 11 March 1986
under file N° 12067/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:


The applicant, Mr. R.M., is a citizen of the United Kingdom
born in 1950.  He is, at present, detained in HM Prison, Long Lartin.
He is represented in the proceedings before the Commission by
B. M. Birnberg and Co., Solicitors, London.

The applicant was arrested in April 1981 and was sentenced to nine
years' imprisonment in March 1982 for his part in a conspiracy to
traffic cannabis to other countries.

The applicant became entitled to consideration for parole after the
completion of one third of his sentence in April 1984.  He had been
strongly recommended for parole by the prison authorities and had
offers of jobs on his release.

In 11 October  1983 the Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, announced a
change in parole policy.  Henceforth he intended to execise his
discretion to ensure that prisoners serving sentences of five years or
more for offences of violence and drug trafficking would be granted
parole only during the last months before the end of their sentence or
in circumstances which were genuinely exceptional.

The applicant, together with other prisoners, introduced proceedings
for judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision.  His application
was rejected by the High Court on 30 April 1984.  An appeal to the
Court of Appeal was also dismissed on 6 July 1984 as was a further
appeal to the House of Lords on 15 November 1984.


Article 7 (art. 7)

The applicant complains, under Article 7 (art. 7) of the Convention,
that the effect of the Home Secretary's new policy is to impose a
penalty that is harsher than that originally imposed upon him at the
time of his sentence and applicable at the time of the commission of
the offence.


On 3 March 1986 the Commission rejected a similar complaint under
inter alia Article 7 (art. 7) of the Convention in the cases of Hogben
v. United Kingdom (Application No. 11653/85) and Honeyman v. the
United Kingdom (Application No. 11732/86).  In the light of these
decisions, the applicant's legal advisers were requested to indicate
whether the applicant intended to maintain his application before the
Commission. In a letter dated 17 June 1986 the applicant's solicitor
stated that, in view of the Commission's decision in the cases of
Hogben and Honeyman, the applicant no longer intended to maintain his
application before the Commission.


The Commission notes that the applicant no longer intends to maintain
his application before the Commission and finds that there are no
reasons relating to the general interest why the Commission should
continue to examine the application.

For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission

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