Přehled
Rozhodnutí
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31400/96
by Andrew James WILSON
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 2 May 1996 by
Andrew James Wilson against the United Kingdom and registered on
7 May 1996 under file No. 31400/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's
indication that they have no observations on the admissibility of the
applicant's complaints;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1968 and resident in
Middlesex. He is represented before the Commission by
Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts as
submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case.
In June 1995 the applicant, who was a senior aircraftman in the
Royal Air Force stationed in Germany, was charged (pursuant to section
70 of the Air Force Act 1955) with the civilian criminal offence of
assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against
the Person Act 1861.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 2 June 1995, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant. On 19 July 1995 the court-
martial, sitting in Germany, found the applicant guilty and fined him
£150.00.
The Confirming Officer subsequently confirmed the applicant's
conviction and sentence and the applicant was notified of this decision
on 22 August 1995.
On 29 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction. He argued that the finding of the court-martial was
against the weight of the evidence and was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
He submitted that there was ample evidence in the prosecution's case
to support the argument of self-defence in that the victim was acting
in an aggressive manner towards the applicant and was using foul,
abusive and aggressive words towards him. By letter dated
15 November 1995 the applicant's representative was informed of the
decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.
On 15 November 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of
the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court
against conviction raising the same grounds as before the Defence
Council. On 21 February 1996 this application was rejected, the single
judge finding that the conviction was not against the weight of the
evidence and that there was ample evidence to support a conviction. The
single judge added that the manner in which the court-martial was
conducted could not be faulted.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice.
The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice"
contained in its report on the Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm.
Report 25.6.96, unpublished).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
he was denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 2 May 1996 and was registered
on 7 May 1996.
On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application and on 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the
parties' observations.
In their letter received on 5 December 1996 the Government stated
that they have no observations on the admissibility of the application.
THE LAW
The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that he was denied a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Government
have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's
complaints.
The Commission considers that the application raises complex and
serious issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which require
determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the
applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other
ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
merits.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber