AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24895/94
by Scott BIRNIE
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 23 June 1994 by
Scott Birnie against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 August
1994 under file No. 24895/94;
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 1951 and resident in
Oxfordshire. 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 or about March 1992 the applicant, then a squadron leader in
the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom, was suspected of the theft
of goods on 8 March 1992 from an air force base in the United States.
In June 1992 the United States Department of Justice waived
jurisdiction and deferred prosecution of the matter to the United
Kingdom's air force authorities.
In February 1993 the applicant was formally charged (pursuant to
section 70(1) of the Air Force Act 1955), by the air force authorities
of the United Kingdom, with the civilian criminal offence of theft
contrary to the Theft Act 1968. The Convening Officer, by order dated
19 February 1993, convened a general court-martial in the United
Kingdom to try the applicant on the charge. On 3 March 1993 the court-
martial found the applicant guilty of theft of three sports vests and
two sports pants. He was sentenced to dismissal from the air force.
The applicant petitioned the Confirming Officer against
conviction and sentence. However, on 28 April 1993 his conviction and
sentence were confirmed by the Confirming Officer.
On 10 May 1993 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against his conviction. By letter dated 2 August 1993 the applicant's
representative was informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force
Board, to reject this petition.
The applicant subsequently applied to a single judge of the
Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal against conviction to
that court. This application was rejected on 2 December 1993. On
12 February 1994 the applicant renewed his application before the full
Courts-Martial Appeal Court and this application was rejected on the
14 July 1994.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice.
The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice"
contained in the judgment in the Findlay case (Eur. Court HR, Findlay
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, to be published in
Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and 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 23 June 1994 and was registered
on 12 August 1994.
On 7 December 1994 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