AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31434/96
by Edward CURRAN
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 1 May 1996 by
Edward Curran against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 May 1996
under file No. 31434/96;
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 1965 and resident in
Oxon. 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 1995 the applicant, who was at the relevant time a sergeant
and a non-commissioned officer in the Royal Air Force on detachment to
Bahrain, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955)
with two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary
to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and with one offence of
common assault contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (these charges
all relating to civilian criminal offences). He was also charged with
drunkenness contrary to section 43 of the Air Force Act 1955.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 5 July 1995, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant. On 7 July 1995 the court-
martial found the applicant guilty on all charges apart from one of the
charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
By letter dated 23 August 1993 the applicant's representative was
informed of the decision taken by the Confirming Officer to mitigate
the applicant's sentence. The sentence confirmed was nine months
detention and the applicant was to be reduced to the ranks.
On 29 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction and sentence. By letter dated 24 November 1995 the
applicant's representative was informed of the decision, taken by the
Air Force Board, to reject this petition.
On 24 November 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of
the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court
against conviction. On 20 January 1996 this application was rejected
by the single judge. On 28 March 1996 the applicant's application, for
leave to appeal to the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court, was rejected
by that 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 1 May 1996 and was registered on
9 May 1996.
On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application and on 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request
observations.
In their letter dated 5 December 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