THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as
follows:

The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, born in 1932 and resident in
Rawalpindi, West Pakistan.

On 6 November 1968 he lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights an application under Article 25 of the Convention complaining
of his arrest in the United Kingdom in 1958, his conviction and
sentence on 16 May 1968 by the H. Borough Court on a charge of indecent
assault and the loss of certain property as a result of his
deportation.

The applicant also made certain further complaints in relation to the
effect of deportation on his family life, the alleged refusal by the
authorities to allow him to see his son and Mrs. C. who is the mother
of his child, and the alleged refusal by the authorities to allow him
to marry Mrs. C. in prison. In this connection he explained that he had
a son by Mrs. C., an English woman living in L.. He stated that up to
April 1968 he was paying Mrs. C. a weekly sum as maintenance and that
while he was in prison in L. she applied to the Prison Governor to
marry him and he sent his consent to the Home Office. However,
permission was refused and the applicant's allegations in this respect
were supported by two letters from Mrs. C. who said that their son was
pining for his father. The applicant further stated that he was not
allowed to see his son or Mrs. C. before leaving England.

Proceedings before the Commission

The Commission examined the applicant's complaints on 2 February 1970
and, by partial decision, declared inadmissible certain parts of the
application. The Commission found that, in regard to his complaints
relating to his arrest and to certain irregularities in the course
thereof, as well as in regard to his conviction and sentence and the
court proceedings concerned, the applicant had failed to exhaust
domestic remedies (Articles 26 and 27 (3), of the Convention). In
regard to his complaints relating to his deportation from the United
Kingdom the Commission found that they were incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention ( Article 27 (2)) insofar as these
complaints concerned deportation as such, and manifestly ill-founded
(Article 27 (2)) insofar as they might be considered in relation
Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Commission rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded the applicant's complaints regarding the
loss of his property.

However, in regard to his complaints in relation to the effect of
deportation on his family life, the alleged refusal by the authorities
to allow him to see his son and Mrs. C. before deportation, and the
alleged refusal to allow him to marry Mrs. C. in prison, the Commission
decided, in accordance with Rule 45 (3) of its Rules of Procedure to
give notice of these complaints to the United Kingdom Government and
to invite the Parties to submit their observations in writing on the
question of admissibility.

The United Kingdom Government submitted its observations on 25 March
1970 and the applicant sent his observations in reply on 23 May 1970.

Submissions of the Parties

1. (a) The respondent Government first refers to Part II of the
Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 which governs the deportation from the
United Kingdom of such persons who are Commonwealth citizens within the
meaning of Section 6 of that Act. Under Section 7 (1) of the Act, where
such Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of seventeen years
is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court by
which he is convicted may recommend that a deportation order be made
in respect of him. Section 7 (2) provides that no recommendation for
deportation may be made where the Commonwealth citizen satisfies
certain residence requirements (five years prior to conviction) and
under Section 9 (1), where such recommendation has been made, the
Secretary of State may make an order requiring the Commonwealth citizen
concerned to leave the United Kingdom and prohibiting him from
returning there so long as the order is in force.

(b) The respondent Government next sets out the relevant facts.
According to the Government's submissions the applicant, who is a
Commonwealth citizen on 16 May, 1968 pleaded guilty at H. B.
Magistrates' Court to two offenses of indecently assaulting a girl aged
fourteen years and to one offence of indecently assaulting a girl aged
eleven years. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment in respect
of each offence to run consecutively and the Court made a
recommendation under Section 7 (1) of the above Act that he be
deported. Section 7 (2) of the Act did not apply to the applicant who
had come to the United Kingdom in July 1963.

Following his conviction the applicant was detained at L. prison.
During his detention he made ten applications for visiting orders for
Mrs. C. all of which were granted and the latest of which resulted in
a visit by Mrs. C. on 7 September 1968. The applicant made no
subsequent application for visiting orders whilst at L. prison nor has
any complaint been received from him concerning the alleged refusal of
the prison authorities and the police to allow him to see Mrs. C. and
his son before he was deported.

Furthermore, in various interviews conducted by the prison and
immigration authorities the applicant stated that he was married with
four children, his wife living in Pakistan, that he had been giving her
financial support and that he intended to arrange for his wife and
children to join him in the United Kingdom in the middle of 1968. He
had previously informed the police officers investigating his case of
his wife and four children in Pakistan and, on 11 September 1968,
petitioned the Home Secretary not to make a deportation order against
him submitting, inter alia, that he was supporting his wife, his
parents, his widowed sister and his four children in Pakistan from the
wages he earned in the United Kingdom.

In his said petition the applicant further stated that he was also
supporting this son by Mrs. C. by giving her £1.25 weekly towards his
maintenance and that he did not wish the child to be without a father.
Mrs. C. herself in September 1968 had written a letter to the Home
Secretary asking that the applicant should not be deported as she
wished to marry him and he was the father of her two youngest children.
At about the same time she had addressed a letter to the Governor of
L. prison asking for permission to marry the applicant but in view of
the information available to the Governor that the applicant was
already married and his wife was alive in Pakistan it had not been
possible to accede to her request.

Mrs. C. was subsequently interviewed by the police and it was
ascertained that she was a widow, that she had known the applicant for
almost five years, and that she had five children, four by her husband
and the youngest, a two-year-old boy, by the applicant.

Giving full and careful consideration to the matters set out in the
applicant's petition and in Mrs. C.'s letter to the Home Secretary, the
latter made on 18 September 1968 an order under Section 9 (1) of the
Act for the deportation of the applicant which was carried out on 9
October 1968.

(c) The United Kingdom Government submits that, in the light of these
facts, the remainder of the applicant's application is either
incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or, in the
alternative, manifestly ill-founded.

The Government considered under Article 8 of the Convention the
applicant's complaint relating to the effect of deportation on his
family life and submits in the first place that there was no
interference with his family life by the authorities and thus no
violation of paragraph (1) of that provision. The Government points out
that deportation of the applicant resulted in his return to Pakistan
where his wife and their children reside, that it remains open for the
applicant to arrange for Mrs. C. and her son to join him there, and
that, finally, by committing offenses resulting in his conviction he
placed himself, by his own actions, in jeopardy of deportation and thus
an ensuing disruption of his family life for which he was alone
responsible could not be regarded as an interference with such family
life within the meaning of Article 8 (1).

The Government next submits that, even assuming that the deportation
of the applicant could be considered as constituting an interference
with his right to respect for his family life, such interference was,
in the circumstances, allowed under paragraph (2) of Article 8 of the
Convention as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a
democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the
protection of health and morals.

The Government then considered under Article 8 of the Convention the
applicant's complaint relating to the alleged refusal of permission to
see his son and Mrs. C. before his deportation from the United Kingdom.
The Government submits that this allegation is without substance in
view of the numerous visits which the applicant had from Mrs. C. and
his son and of the fact that, subsequent to 7 September 1968 no
application for such a visit had been made by him.

The respondent Government finally considered under Article 12 of the
Convention the applicant's complaint that he was not allowed to marry
Mrs. C. in prison. In this connection the Government submits that under
that provision the right to marry is secured only according to the
national laws governing the exercise of that right, and English law
precludes a marriage in England between persons one of whom is a party
to a persisting marriage. Consequently, since the applicant at the time
was already married, he had no right under Article 12 of the Convention
to contract a further marriage in England with Mrs. C. and leave to
marry in prison was legitimately refused by the Home Secretary being
the authority responsible for his imprisonment.

2. The applicant's observations in reply have been submitted on 23 May
1970. Insofar as it is possible, from the incoherent terms of the
applicant's submissions, to ascertain the substance of his reply, it
appears that he considers the United Kingdom Government's observations
on admissibility as not showing the true facts of his case.

He first submits again that he was wrongly convicted and sentenced and
that his deportation was not according to law. In this respect he
refers to submissions previously made to the Commission and, in
particular, to his letter to the Home Office, dated 4 June 1969 in
which he had appealed against the deportation order.

He further submits that, "before one month of this case" , he had
obtained a divorce by telephone from his wife in Pakistan in accordance
with Muslim law. He contends that the prison authorities must have
misunderstood his statement that he was obliged to pay maintenance to
his wife and children in Pakistan in that they inferred from this that
he was still married. In fact, however, he had been divorced but was
nevertheless under an obligation to support his wife and children.

Furthermore, it was true that the prison authorities had allowed
certain visits to which, in his opinion, he was entitled. However, they
had not allowed "the special and last visit" of Mrs. C. and his
children in England before deporting him although he had asked the
Governor's and Welfare Officer's permission for that visit. Moreover,
the authorities had consistently refused his requests to see the
representative of Pakistan at L..

The applicant finally submits that as a result of his deportation he
is presently suffering considerable hardship in Pakistan. He states
that he has not yet received his clothes, papers and other personal
goods which he was obliged to leave behind in England. Without these
papers and certificates he is allegedly unable to find employment in
Pakistan and is obliged to borrow money in order to survive. He also
states that, in the meanwhile, his property in England had partly been
stolen or destroyed or sold and that he had not received any value in
return for the loss suffered. In this connection, he encloses a
complete list of the objects concerned.

The applicant refers specifically to the terms of his letter of 4 June
1969 to the Home Office copy of which he had previously submitted in
support of his application and now includes again in his observations
on admissibility. He alleges generally that the injustices which he has
suffered are the consequences of racial discrimination.

He requests compensation in the amount of £2,000 or permission to
return to England.

THE LAW

Whereas, with regard to the applicant's complaint relating to the
effect of deportation on his family life, the Commission had regard to
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention which guarantees generally the
right to family life; whereas, however, paragraph (2) of Article 8
(Art. 8-2) of the Convention provides that "there shall be no
interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right
except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others";

Whereas the Commission has stated in a number of previous decisions
(for instance, Application No. 3170/67, X. v. Belgium and the United
Kingdom) that the terms of paragraph (2) (Art. 8-2) left a considerable
measure of discretion to the domestic authorities in taking into
account factors in the case which might appear to them to be critical
for the prevention of disorder or crime; whereas, nevertheless, the
Commission has ultimately the duty to judge whether or not the
interference complained of exceeded the margin of appreciation left to
the authorities in such cases and was thus not justified under the
provisions of paragraph (2) (Art. 8-2);

Whereas, in the present case, the Commission observes that the
applicant has been convicted of three offenses of indecently assaulting
a girl under age after having pleaded guilty to these offenses;

Whereas the court by which he was convicted made a recommendation under
Section 7 (1) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, that a
deportation order be made in respect of him; and whereas it is clear
that the court and the authorities were concerned, when deciding the
question of his deportation, with the necessity of preventing disorder
or crime in the United Kingdom;

Whereas the Commission finds that the decisions taken in this respect
were reasonable having regard to the seriousness of the offenses
concerned and in no way exceeded the "margin of appreciation" as
regards the measures necessary in the circumstances for the prevention
of disorder or crime within the meaning of Article 8 (2) (Art. 8-2) of
the Convention;

Whereas the Commission concludes that, even assuming that any family
life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention existed
in the present case, this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, with regard to the applicant's complaint relating to the
alleged refusal of permission to obtain the visit of his son and Mrs.
C. before the deportation from the United Kingdom, the Commission had
again regard to the provisions of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention;

Whereas it is not contested that on several occasions the applicant had
the visit of Mrs C. and his son in prison but he alleges that the
authorities refused him the "last and special visit" prior to his
deportation; whereas, however, the applicant failed to show that he
made a formal request for that visit or that any visit requested by him
had been refused by the authorities;

Whereas, consequently, the Commission finds that, again assuming the
existence of a family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of
the Convention, an examination of the application does not disclose any
appearance of violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Convention and, in particular, in Article 8 (Art. 8);

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is equally
manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article
27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas finally, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was not
allowed to marry Mrs. C. in prison, the Commission had regard to
Article 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention which provides that "men and
women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a
family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this
right;

Whereas the Commission observes that, according to the information
available at the time at which the authorities refused the applicant's
petition to marry Mrs. C. in prison he was married in Pakistan and that
English law precludes a marriage in England between persons one of whom
is a party to a subsisting marriage; whereas his statement that he was
divorced from his wife in Pakistan prior to his deportation has
apparently only been made during the proceedings before the Commission,
i.e. after his deportation; whereas these submissions have not been
substantiated by any evidence nor has the applicant shown that he made
it clear to the United Kingdom authorities, prior to his deportation,
that he was no longer married in Pakistan;

Whereas, consequently, an examination of this complaint as it has been
submitted also does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the
rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and, in particular, in
Article 12 (Art. 12); whereas it follows that this part of the
application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27,
paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS APPLICATION
INADMISSIBLE