European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MURFIN v United Kingdom - 21498/02 [2007] ECHR 204 (13 February 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/204.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 204
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
21498/02
by Keith MURFIN
against the United Kingdom
lodged
on 27 May 2002
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J. Casadevall,
President,
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Keith Murfin, is a British national who was born in 1942 and lives in Plymouth. He was represented before the Court by Howard & Over, Solicitors in Davenport. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Derek Walton, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
On 21st March 2001, Mr Murfin, his wife and his step-daughter purchased 30 kilos of hand rolling tobacco, 600 cigarettes, 150 cigarillos and 1 litre of spirits in Belgium.
As they attempted to travel back to England by sea, they were stopped and interviewed by British customs officers at the port at Calais.
It was decided, on behalf of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, that the applicant and his companions had failed to satisfy them that the goods which had been purchased were not held or used for a commercial purpose and that therefore the goods were liable to forfeiture under Article 5(1) of the Excise Goods (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992. In addition, the motor vehicle in which Mr Murfin was travelling had been used in the carriage of goods liable to forfeiture and was therefore itself liable to forfeiture under section 141 of the Customs & Excise Management Act 1979.
Mr Murfin is disabled and receives the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance, as he can walk only a short distance without severe discomfort. When the officer made the decision to confiscate the goods and vehicle Mr Murfin informed him that he needed the car to get back to Plymouth. He was told he would have to hire a car in England. The applicant had to wait four hours in Dover until a car became available for hire. During this time he had backache and severe pain in his left leg.
Mr Murfin appealed to the Magistrates’ Court against the decision of the Commissioners, on the ground that the goods and car had not lawfully been liable to forfeiture. He was advised by his solicitor that legal aid would not be available for representation before the Magistrates. The applicant therefore attended court, where, on 29 November 2001, the Commissioners’ decision was confirmed.
The applicant subsequently contacted a different solicitor, who advised him that there might be grounds for challenging the Commissioners’ decision under the Human Rights Act 1998. The applicant applied for legal aid to obtain counsel’s opinion as to how he might challenge the decisions of the Commissioners and Magistrates’ Court. The application for public funding was refused on 24 January 2002 since there were reasonable grounds for believing that even when the investigative work had been carried out, the claim would not be strong enough in terms of prospects of success and costs benefit, to satisfy the relevant criteria for full representation. The applicant applied for a review of this decision, but it was confirmed by the Review Committee.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the confiscation of his car had amounted to degrading treatment in view of his disability. Under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention he contended that the confiscation procedure had been based on an assumption that he was guilty of importing the goods for commercial use. Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 he stated that he had been entitled to retain possession of the goods and the vehicle and that the confiscation had been disproportionate.
THE LAW
Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
By a letter dated 21 July 2006 the applicant informed the Court that, the he did not wish to continue with his application. By a letter of 23 August 2006 the Registry invited the applicant to clarify the reasons for his decision by 22 September 2006, but he did not reply. The Government were informed of the applicant’s intention by a letter dated 23 August 2006 and presented no objection. On 21 November 2006 the Registry again sent the applicant a letter inviting him to clarify the reasons for his decision. By a letter of 27 November the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his claims as he was unwilling to incur further costs in view of what he considered his poor prospects of success.
The Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a). In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EARLY Josep Casadevall
Registrar President