AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27341/95
by Michael BILLING
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 26 April 1995 by
Michael Billing against the United Kingdom and registered on
16 May 1995 under file No. 27341/95;
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 1969 and resident in
Wiltshire. 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 December 1993 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 dangerous driving and with
driving having consumed alcohol above the prescribed limit contrary to
the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 26 April 1994, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. On
11 May 1994 the court-martial found the applicant guilty on the second
charge (the first charge having been withdrawn) and he was sentenced
to eighty four days detention.
On 25 May 1994 the applicant petitioned the Confirming Officer
against conviction and sentence. By letter dated 4 July 1994 the
Confirming Officer notified the applicant's representative that the
conviction had been confirmed but that the sentence had been reduced
to fifty six days detention.
On 8 August 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction. By letter dated 11 October 1994 the applicant's
representative was informed of the decision on this latter petition,
taken by the Air Force Board, not to vary the conviction or sentence.
On 10 October 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of the
Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court against
conviction. On 17 November 1994 this application was rejected.
On 23 November 1994 the applicant renewed his application for
leave to appeal against conviction before the full Courts-Martial
Appeal Court and on 2 February 1995 this application was rejected by
the full court.
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 26 April 1995 and was
registered on 16 May 1995.
On 4 July 1995 the Commission decided to communicate and adjourn
the application.
On 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the Government's
observations. In their letter received on 7 November 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy