AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY
Application No. 12845/87
by Kewal Krishan ABROL
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
7 October 1987, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 27 October 1986
by Kewal Krishan ABROL against the United Kingdom and registered on
7 April 1987 under file No. 12845/87;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Indian citizen born in 1927 and resident
in Birmingham. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be
summarised as follows.
On 7 January 1981, the applicant, a dentist, carried out an
emergency extraction on a patient who died shortly afterwards. The
applicant was charged with manslaughter and was convicted on
26 October 1981. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months
imprisonment suspended for 2 years and fined £1000. He was granted
leave to appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal
on 13 July 1982.
The applicant subsequently applied to the Secretary of State
for a reference under S.17(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 on the
ground that forensic medical evidence had become available which cast
doubt on the cause of death alleged by the prosecution. The Secretary
of State sought independent forensic medical advice, as a result of
which he made a reference under the 1968 Act to the Court of Appeal,
which on 11 July 1983, quashed the applicant's conviction.
The General Dental Council (hereafter referred to as the
G.D.C.) had previously initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
applicant but these were adjourned pending the outcome of the
reference to the Court of Appeal. Following the quashing of the
conviction the applicant was informed by letter dated 12 July 1983
that disciplinary proceedings would not be resumed.
On 2 August 1983, however, the applicant received a letter
from the G.D.C., which stated their intention to summon the applicant
before the Disciplinary Committee on a charge of infamous or
disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. This hearing, at which
the applicant was represented by counsel, was held on 10 November
1983. The Committee found, inter alia, that the applicant had failed
to have a second qualified person present when conducting an
extraction under general anaesthetic, that he had left the patient
unattended and that he had failed to have sufficient resuscitation
equipment available. They accordingly found the applicant guilty of
disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and erased the
applicant's name from their Register. The applicant would be able,
however, under the Dentists Act 1984 to apply after 10 months for
restoration of his name to the Register.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the Privy
Council. This appeal was dismissed on 10 April 1984.
The applicant subsequently applied to the G.D.C. for
restoration to the Register. His application was refused on 15 May
1985 and 14 May 1986.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of being subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3 of the
Convention, inter alia, in that the G.D.C. re-opened the disciplinary
proceedings after his conviction was quashed and that the G.D.C. have
refused to reinstate him.
The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 6 para.
2 in that following the quashing of his conviction, the G.D.C. brought
disciplinary proceedings against him and thereby ignored the fact that
the courts found him innocent.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the disciplinary proceedings
brought against him by the General Dental Council (the G.D.C.)
constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, contrary
to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and breached the presumption of
innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).
However, the Commission is unable to deal with this aspect of
the case as the applicant has failed to observe the six months' rule laid down
in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The final decision in the
disciplinary proceedings was that of the Privy Council on 10 April 1984, but
the applicant first lodged his complaints with the Commission on 27 October
1986, more than six months later. It follows that this part of the application
must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. The applicant has also alleged that the refusal of the G.D.C.
to restore his name to the Dentists' Register constitutes a further
breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. However the Commission finds
that the refusal cannot be said to amount to the serious ill-treatment
proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3). It must, therefore, reject this part of the
application as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)