THE FACTS

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

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom born in 1923 and at
present detained in prison at Grendon Underwood.

He was put on probation at Somerset Quarter Session on .. January 1968.
A condition of the probation order was that he should reside at the Y
Hospital or any place directed by a Dr. B for a period not exceeding
twelve months and receive treatment from him.

He says that during the period he was in the hospital he received no
treatment, he was detained in a locked ward and he eventually asked to
be discharged. He says that Dr B, after communicating with the
probation service, agreed to his request because, as he later stated
in writing, he had no power to detain the applicant while the latter
was a voluntary patient.

The applicant complains that the condition included in the probation
order was invalid because the restrictions placed upon him could not
be legally enforced by Dr B.

The applicant was charged with failing to comply with a condition of
the probation order, namely leaving the hospital without Dr B's
permission. He says that he made no plea before the summary court in
answer to this charge, reserved his defence and was committed to
Somerset Quarter Sessions. He alleges that he was not allowed to plead,
being told that he was appearing for sentence only, having been found
guilty by the magistrates, and was sentenced on .. February 1968 to
four years' imprisonment. He complains that he was not legally tried
but found "guilty on supposition". He applied for leave to appeal which
was refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal on .. July 1968.
The full Court of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused leave
to appeal against sentence on .. January 1969, but he maintains that
his appeal was against conviction as well. His application to the House
of Lords was refused on .. January 1969. He claims that he has been
deprived to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention
should be decided.

He further complains that the only evidence against him was a probation
officer's report which was not made available to him until eight months
after he was sentenced, after his Member of Parliament had made
representations to the Home Secretary. He alleges that the prison
authorities repeatedly obstructed his efforts to obtain certain
information relating to his case, and he eventually asked the Court of
Appeal to make a direction against them. The applicant gives no further
particulars of this allegation.

He alleges violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Whereas, insofar as the applicant can be said to complain of the
conviction in respect of which he was put on probation, it is to be
observed that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the
Commission may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have
been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of
international law; and whereas the applicant failed to make use of his
right to appeal which was available to him immediately after his
conviction;

Whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted the remedies available to him
under English law; whereas, moreover, an examination of the case as it
has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not
disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have
absolved the applicant, according to the generally recognised rules of
international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at his
disposal; whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of
domestic remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3)
(Art. 26, 27-3) of that Convention has not been complied with by the
applicant;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that the probation
order was invalid because it was not legally enforceable, the question
whether or not such condition was legally enforceable has no bearing
on the validity of a probation order whose essential object is to seek
the voluntary compliance of the probationer;

Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that he was detained
in a locked ward in the hospital, it is to be recalled that, under
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal
with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted according
to the generally recognised rules of international law; and whereas the
applicant failed to show that he made any complaint to the appropriate
authorities or attempted to institute any proceedings;

Whereas, therefore, he has again not exhausted the remedies available
to him under English law; whereas, moreover an examination of the case
does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which
might have absolved the applicant from exhausting the domestic remedies
at his disposal;

Whereas, therefore, the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies laid down in Articles 26 and 27 (Art. 26, 27) of that
Convention has not been complied with by the applicant;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains, under Article 6, paragraph
(1) (Art. 6-1), of the Convention, that he did not have a fair trial
in the proceedings before the magistrates and Quarter Sessions
following which he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, it is to
be observed that the applicant's failure to comply with the condition
under the probation order empowered to the court to pass sentence on
the applicant for the original offense; whereas the validity of the
probation order could no longer be challenged in those proceedings;

Whereas therefore, the only issue before Quarter Sessions, before
passing sentence was whether or not the applicant had failed to comply
with the condition under the probation order; whereas a finding on this
issue since it could and did in the present case lead to the imposition
of a sentence, was in substance the determination of a criminal charge
within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), of the
Convention;

Whereas, however, it was not controvertible, and does not appear ever
to have been disputed by the applicant, that he was in fact in breach
of this condition; whereas, therefore, the sole issue before the court
was not in dispute; whereas it follows that the applicant's complaint
that he did not receive a fair hearing is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains of his subsequent
detention, and in particular that he had been deprived of his right
under Article 5, paragraph (4) (Art. 5-4) of the Convention to take
proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention should be decided,
it is clear that the applicant was detained after conviction by a
competent court and in accordance with the terms of his sentence in
conformity with Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the
Convention;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is also paragraph
(2) (Art. 5-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission

DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE