AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27762/95
by Derek FINCH
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 16 June 1995 by
Derek Finch against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 June 1995
under file No. 27762/95;
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 1960 and resident in
Lincoln. 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 May 1994 the applicant, then a non-commissioned officer in the
army stationed in Cyprus, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the
Army Act 1955) with six counts of false accounting (a civilian criminal
offence) contrary to the Theft Act 1968.
The Convening Officer convened a district court-martial in Cyprus
to try the applicant on the charges. On 2 June 1994 the applicant
pleaded guilty to all charges and he was sentenced to six months
detention on each count (which sentences were to run concurrently), to
dismissal from the army and to be reduced to the ranks.
The applicant's conviction and sentence were confirmed by the
Confirming Officer on 21 June 1994 and promulgated on 7 July 1994.
On 2 September 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction (the applicant arguing, inter alia, that he was
misled into pleading guilty) and sentence. By letter dated 11 November
1994 the applicant's representative was informed that the Army Board,
who took the decision on this petition, had rejected his petition.
On 14 November 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of
the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal against conviction
to that court. On 6 January 1995 this application was rejected.
The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal
against conviction before the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court and on
6 March 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 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 16 June 1995 and was registered
on 30 June 1995.
On 18 October 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