AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 24584/94
by Mark PARTOON
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 8 June 1994 by
Mark Partoon against the United Kingdom and registered on 11 July 1994
under file No. 24584/94;
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 1972 and resident in
Northamptonshire. 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 or around March 1993 the applicant, then a signaller in the
Royal Corps of Signals of the army of the United Kingdom stationed in
Cyprus, was charged (pursuant to section 70(1) of the Army Act 1955)
with the civilian criminal offences of wounding and common assault,
contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861, respectively.
The Convening Officer, by order dated 20 April 1993, convened a
district court-martial to try the applicant on the charges.
On 27 April 1993 the court-martial found the applicant guilty and
he was sentenced to dismissal from the army and to be detained for
18 months.
The applicant subsequently petitioned the Confirming Officer.
However, by letter dated 15 June 1993 the applicant's representative
was notified that the conviction and sentence had been confirmed by the
Confirming Officer.
On 18 June 1993 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council. By
letter dated 9 August 1993 the applicant's representative was informed
of the decision, taken by the Army Board, to reject this petition.
On 11 August 1993 the applicant applied to a single judge of the
Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal against conviction to
that court. This application was rejected on 22 September 1993.
On 14 October 1993 the applicant renewed his application for
leave to appeal before the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court and this
application was rejected on the 16 May 1994.
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 8 June 1994 and was registered
on 11 July 1994.
On 7 December 1994 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