AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25939/94
by Michael Donald JARRETT
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 Michael Donald Jarrett against the United Kingdom and registered on
14 December 1994 under file No. 25939/94;
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 1959 and resident in
Reading. 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 1993 the applicant was a non-commissioned officer in the Royal
Air Force of the United Kingdom stationed in Germany. In October 1993
he was charged, pursuant to section 70(1) of the Air Force Act 1955,
with the civilian criminal offence of obtaining property by deception
contrary to the Theft Act 1968.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 19 October 1993, convened
a district court-martial to try the applicant. The court-martial took
place at the Royal Air Force station in Laarbruch, Germany on 11-
12 November 1993. The applicant was found guilty and was sentenced to
be reduced to the rank of corporal and to a stop in pay.
On 17 November 1993 the applicant presented a petition (against
conviction and sentence) to the Confirming officer. By letter dated
20 December 1993, the applicant's representative was notified that the
conviction and sentence had been confirmed by the Confirming Officer.
On 21 December 1993 the applicant presented an appeal petition
(against conviction and sentence) to the Defence Council. However, by
letter dated 14 April 1994 the applicant's representative was notified
of the decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.
On 28 July 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 that application 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