AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27342/95
by Debra HILEY
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 2 May 1995 by
Debra Hiley against the United Kingdom and registered on 16 May 1995
under file No. 27342/95;
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 1969 and resident in
Yorkshire. She 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 June 1994 the applicant, then a non-commissioned officer in
the army, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955)
with the civilian criminal offence of assault occasioning actual bodily
harm, or in the alternative, with the civilian criminal offence of
common assault contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and
the Criminal Justice Act 1988, respectively.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 1 June 1994, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. On
22 July 1994 the court-martial found the applicant guilty on the first
charge and she was sentenced to nine months detention, to dismissal
from the army, to be reduced to the ranks and to pay £500.00
compensation.
The Confirming Officer subsequently confirmed the applicant's
conviction and sentence.
On 6 September 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction and sentence. The Army Board, who took the decision
on this petition, did not vary the conviction or sentence apart from
reducing the compensation payable to £100. The applicant's
representative was notified of this decision by letter dated
31 October 1994.
On 23 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 30 December 1994 this application was rejected.
On 6 January 1995 the applicant renewed her 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
she 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 2 May 1995 and was registered
on 16 May 1995
On 4 July 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 she 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 Chambery
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy