Cable and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC]

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3

February 1999

Cable and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 24436/94

Judgment 18.2.1999

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Independent tribunal

Independence and impartiality of courts-martial: violation

Facts: The case originated in thirty-five separate applications, brought by British citizens. Twenty-four of the applicants had served in the air force, and the other eleven applicants had served in the army. Each applicant was charged with one or more civilian criminal or armed forces disciplinary offences and was tried, convicted and sentenced by a court-martial under either the Air Force Act 1955 or the Army Act 1955. Central to the system under the 1955 Acts was the role of the “convening officer” who, inter alia, was responsible for convening the court-martial and appointing its members and the prosecuting officer. The convening officer had the final decision on the nature and detail of the charges to be brought, and a plea to a lesser charge could not be accepted from the accused without his or her consent. In certain circumstances the convening officer could dissolve the court-martial either before or during the trial, and, since he or she usually also acted as confirming officer, the court-martial’s findings were not effective until confirmed by him or her.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the courts-martial which tried them were not independent or impartial tribunals.

Law: The Court recalled that in a previous judgment (Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997) it had found that a court-martial convened pursuant to the Army Act 1955 did not meet the requirements of independence or impartiality set by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view in particular of the central part played in the prosecution by the convening officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities, was superior in rank to the members of the court-martial and had the power, albeit it in prescribed circumstances, to dissolve the court-martial and to refuse to confirm its decision. The Court could see no reason for distinguishing the cases of the present thirty-five applicants from this earlier judgment, and therefore found a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

The Court awarded the applicants’ reasonable legal costs and expenses., Judge Zupančič dissenting on the question of an award of non-pecuniary damages to the applicants.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy