AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 30461/96
by David LEDGER
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 29 February 1996
by David Ledger against the United Kingdom and registered on
15 March 1996 under file No. 30461/96;
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 1971 and resident in
West Yorkshire. 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 1995 the applicant, who was a senior aircraftman and a
non-commissioned officer in the Royal Air Force, was charged together
with another aircraftman (pursuant to section 70 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 17 May 1995, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant. On 21 June 1995 the court-
martial found the applicant guilty. He was fined £800.00 and was
severely reprimanded.
The Confirming Officer subsequently confirmed the applicant's
conviction and sentence.
On 24 July 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council
against conviction. He amended his petition on 14 August 1995. The
applicant submitted, inter alia, that the finding was unsafe and
unsatisfactory because it was against the weight of the evidence and
because there was considerable doubt as to whether the victim had
suffered any bodily harm attributable to an assault. By letter dated
18 October 1995 the applicant's representative was informed of the
decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.
On 18 October 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of the
Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court against
conviction raising the same grounds as before the Defence Council. On
26 January 1996 this application was rejected. The single judge found
that the evidence of the victim was confirmed by an independent witness
and that it was a matter for the court-martial to assess the weight of
the evidence in the light of the clear and fair directions it had
received from the Judge Advocate. He also found, inter alia, that the
victim had alleged that he had sustained facial injuries during the
assault upon him and that that evidence had been confirmed by a medical
doctor who examined the victim at hospital the morning of the relevant
incident.
The applicant's co-accused has also introduced an application
before the Commission (No. 30460/96).
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 29 February 1996 and was
registered on 15 March 1996.
On 15 May 1996 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