46
9787/82
It is further submitted that the control on the lawfulness of the applicant's detention as required by Art. 5(4) was incorporated in the machinery of the court of trial and the subsequent appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. In this respect reference is made to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Vagrancy" cases (judgment of 18 June 1971, para. 76 at p.40). Furthermore, under the law of the United Kingdom he could have challenged his detention on the ground that the Secretary of State failed to comply e with any statutory requirement or had exercised his discretion in bad
faith or capriciously, or for a wrongful purpose. Moreover it was open to him to seek judicial review of the decision of the Parole Board to confirm his recall on the grounds that the Board did not act fairly. In the alternative, it is submitted that the Parole Board could be considered as a court under Art. 5(4) since it enjoys the necessary independence and offers sufficient procedural safeguards.
Finally, the Goverment submit that the present case is not one of deprivation of liberty on grounds of mental instability and thus Art. 5(4) does not require periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention where a prisoner is serving a sentence imposed on him after lawful conviction.
The Commission has carried out a preliminary examination of the application in the light of the parties' submissions. It considers that it raises, as a whole, complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application.
It follows that the application cannot be regarded as manifestly 111-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, without prejuding the merits,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission
President of the Commission
(H. C. KRUGER)
(C. A. NORGAARD)
Page 75Page 76