AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27245/95
by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 26 June 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
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 8 December 1994
by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY against the United Kingdom and registered
on 4 May 1995 under file No. 27245/95.
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, an Irish national, is a school teacher and resides
in Armagh (Northern Ireland). Before the Commission he is represented
by McGrory & Company, solicitors practising in Belfast.
The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
On 24 June 1990, at 2.50 pm, the applicant, while driving his
car, was arrested by the police in connection with the detonation of
a landmine which had occurred at about 1.55 pm the same day and had
caused the death of four persons.
Criminal proceedings were instituted against him on an
unspecified date.
On 5 June 1992 the applicant was convicted by the Crown Court of
Northern Ireland on four murder charges and a number of associated
charges relating to the above-mentioned killings and was sentenced to
life imprisonment. The Court based its conviction mainly on forensic
evidence establishing a link between the bombing and the applicant.
In particular, the trial judge considered as highly relevant the
reports produced on behalf of the Crown by two scientists, Doctor I.
and Doctor F.
On 18 June 1992 the applicant filed an appeal before the Court
of Appeal. In his grounds of appeal, lodged on 9 September 1992, he
contested the findings of the Crown Court that he had been involved in
the bombing operation. The applicant requested the Court of Appeal to
restrict his criminal liability to the offence of assisting offenders
under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
On 15 December 1992 the Court of Appeal fixed the date for the
hearing as 17 May 1993.
However, on 7 May 1993 the applicant's counsel applied for an
adjournment of the hearing. The request was based on the fact that,
since the applicant was not satisfied with the evidence produced before
the trial judge, he wanted to obtain a supplementary forensic report.
On 18 June 1993 the adjournment was granted, and the hearing was fixed
for 27 September 1993.
On 10 September 1993 the applicant's counsel applied again for
an adjournment as his counsel was involved in another trial. The
adjournment was granted on 23 October 1993 and the hearing was then
postponed until 6 December 1993.
The report of a forensic expert, Doctor N.S., engaged by the
applicant, was ready on 4 October 1993. The applicant considered that
the forensic issues had not been properly investigated, and formulated
new questions for the expert on 25 October 1993.
On 30 November 1993, the counsel for the applicant requested a
new adjournment, as the additional questions had not yet been answered
by the forensic scientist. The Court of Appeal refused to grant a new
adjournment on the basis that it had already granted numerous
adjournments in order to facilitate the applicant's defence and that
18 months had passed between the conviction of the applicant and the
appeal, a period which was long enough to allow the applicant to
investigate the matters relating to the forensic evidence.
The new forensic report answering the applicant's questions was
ready on 1 December 1993, but the applicant's counsel received it only
on 6 December 1993.
On 3 December 1993 the applicant dismissed his counsel. On
6 December 1993 he appeared in person before the Court of Appeal. He
informed the Court that he was not properly prepared, as he had ordered
a new forensic report which was due to be ready in six weeks time.
Examining the applicant's new request, the Court noted that the
decision of the applicant to dismiss his experienced counsel after
repeated adjournments of the hearing appeared to have no justification,
but was merely an attempt to delay and obstruct the hearing of the
appeal. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had not
produced to the Court any forensic report in support of his
applications for adjournments, that the grounds of appeal lodged by the
applicant three months after the conviction made no reference to
forensic science points, and that no additional grounds containing such
points were ever lodged. The Court came to the conclusion that there
were no additional issues relating to the forensic evidence which could
have been raised on the appeal.
In examining the appeal, the Court considered the judgment of the
trial judge as well as all possible points which in the view of the
Court could have been advanced on behalf of the applicant on appeal.
The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant did not contest the
facts as they had been established by the Crown Court, that the trial
court had heard his father as a witness and that the applicant himself
had given oral evidence.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had considered
in detail all the arguments in defence advanced on behalf of the
applicant and that his conviction on all counts was satisfactory.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (b) of the
Convention that, because of the refusal of the Court of Appeal to
adjourn the hearing on the appeal, he did not have adequate time or
facilities to properly prepare for his defence.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal rejected his
application for another adjournment of the hearing, although he needed
time to obtain further comments concerning the forensic evidence. He
invokes Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b), which provides, so far as
relevant, as follows :
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights :
[...]
b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
his defence;
[...]"
As the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 6 (Art. 6)
are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under
paragraph 1, the Commission will consider these complaints in the light
of the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities,
Eur. Court H.R., Melin v. France judgment of 22 June 1993, Series A no.
261-A, p. 11, para. 21, and Hadjianastassiou v. Greece judgment of
16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, para. 31).
The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b) has
been interpreted as implying that the substantive defence activity on
behalf of the accused may comprise everything which is "necessary" to
prepare for the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to
organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as
to the possibility to put all arguments relevant to his defence before
the trial court, and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings
(Can v. Austria, Comm. Report 12.7.84, par. 53, Eur. Court H.R., Series
A no. 96, p.17).
In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant was
heard by the Crown Court and that he called his father as a witness.
Furthermore, before the Court of Appeal the applicant requested
and obtained two adjournments of the hearing, on 18 June 1993 and
23 October 1993. A third request for adjournment was refused on
30 November 1993, on the ground that the applicant had had ample time
for the preparation of his defence. Moreover, the Court of Appeal
noted that the applicant had neither lodged any grounds of appeal
concerning the forensic science points, nor had he presented any of the
forensic reports he had obtained.
The Commission observes that the applicant, who had had 18 months
for the preparation of his defence, did not provide objective elements
to justify his numerous requests for adjournment of the hearing before
the Court of Appeal. Rather, the applicant appeared to be dissatisfied
with the conclusions reached by the expert acting on his behalf.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the refusal
of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the hearing of 6 December 1993 did
not infringe the applicant's rights of defence, nor did it deprive him
of a fair trial.
It follows that the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-
founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy