AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25940/94
by Nigel David FRAME
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 5 December 1994
by Nigel David Frame against the United Kingdom and registered on
14 December 1994 under file No. 25940/94;
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 1968 and resident in
Lincolnshire. 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.
On 10 November 1993 the applicant (a senior aircraftman in the
Royal Air Force) was charged, pursuant to section 70(1) of the Air
Force Act 1955, with the civilian criminal offence of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 22 December 1993, convened
a district court-martial to try the applicant. The court-martial took
place on 17-20 January 1994. The applicant was found guilty and was
sentenced to 140 days detention.
On 21 January 1994 the applicant presented a petition (against
conviction and sentence) to the Confirming Officer. By letter dated
17 February 1994 the applicant's legal representative was notified that
the Confirming Officer had confirmed the conviction and that the
applicant's sentence had been reduced to 112 days detention.
On 22 February 1994 the applicant presented an appeal petition
against conviction and sentence to the Defence Council. By letter dated
19 May 1994 the applicant's representative was notified of the
decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.
On 8 August 1994 the applicant was refused, by a single judge of
the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, leave to appeal against conviction to
that court.
The applicant's subsequent renewal of his application, for leave
to appeal against conviction to the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court,
was rejected on 15 November 1994.
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 on 5 December 1994 and was
registered on 14 December 1994.
On 28 February 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