Search
document

Document text Analytics

HUGHES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31188/96 • ECHR ID: 001-45965

Document date: January 14, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

HUGHES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31188/96 • ECHR ID: 001-45965

Document date: January 14, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 31188/96

Stephen Jeremy Hughes

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 14 January 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

(paras. 1-3)

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

(paras. 4-7)

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . .1

(paras. 8-18)

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

(paras. 19-21)

APPENDIX: DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

I. THE PARTIES

1. This Report, which is drawn up in accordance with Article 30

para. 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms, concerns the application brought by Stephen

Jeremy Hughes against the United Kingdom.

2. The applicant was born in 1955 and last resided in Gosport. In

the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by

Mr. John Mackenzie, a solicitor practising in London.

3. The Government of the United Kingdom were represented by their

Agent, Ms. Susan Dickson, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision

on admissibility of 9 April 1997, annexed hereto, and may be summarised

as follows:

5. The applicant was an officer in the Royal Navy and in 1994 he was

charged (pursuant to the Naval Discipline Act 1957) with the civilian

criminal offence of theft contrary to the Theft Act 1968.

6. The applicant pleaded guilty at his court-martial and he was

sentenced to, inter alia, 30 months imprisonment and to stoppages in

pay. On appeal, the Naval Secretary reduced the sentence of

imprisonment to two years and, subsequently, the Admiralty Board

reduced the stoppages in pay.

7. The applicant complains that he did not have a fair and public

hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law

contrary to Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

8. The application was introduced on 13 April 1996 and was

registered on 26 April 1996.

9. On 4 September 1996 the First Chamber decided, pursuant to

Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to

submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

10. In their letter received on 21 November 1996 the Government

stated that they had no observations on the admissibility of the

application.

11. On 9 April 1997 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

12. The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent

to the parties on 24 April 1997 and they were invited to submit such

further information or observations on the merits as they wished. By

letter dated 30 May 1997 the Government stated that they did not wish

to submit any further evidence or observations.

13. Certain proposals for a friendly settlement of the case were

subsequently exchanged between the parties. The last proposal of the

Government was forwarded by the Commission to the applicant's

representative by letter dated 21 July 1997. Having received no

response, the Commission wrote to that representative by letter dated

7 October 1997 requesting confirmation of the applicant's position on

the Government's friendly settlement proposal by 24 October 1997.

14. The applicant's representative responded by letter dated

30 October 1997 stating that the applicant had moved without leaving

a forwarding address and that the representative was not therefore in

a position to take the necessary instructions.

15. On 4 November 1997 the Commission wrote to the applicant's

representative pointing out that, in such circumstances, the Commission

could conclude that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing

his application and could strike it out of its list of cases on that

basis. Accordingly, the applicant's representative was invited to

confirm by 7 December 1997 whether he had succeeded in locating the

applicant.

16. By letter received on 5 December 1997 the applicant's

representative confirmed that the applicant had moved from his Royal

Navy quarters in December 1996 without leaving a forwarding address

with his representative and that the representative's correspondence

had been returned from that address marked 'gone away'. His

representative also confirmed that the applicant had not been in touch

with him since he had changed address and stated that he had to assume

that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the

application.

17. On 14 January 1998 the Commission decided to strike the present

application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a)

of the Convention.

18. It adopted the present Report and decided to transmit it to the

Committee of Ministers and the Parties for information and to publish

it. The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM 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

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

19. The Commission notes that the applicant moved from his previous

address in December 1996, that he has not left a forwarding address

with his representative and that his representative has not heard from

the applicant since he moved.

20. In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the

applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning

of Article 30 para. 1 (a) (Art. 30-1-a) of the Convention.

21. Moreover, as regards the issues raised in the present case, the

Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting respect

for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the

further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1

in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE APPLICATION No. 31188/96 OUT OF ITS LIST OF

CASES;

ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;

DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers

and the Parties for information, and to publish it.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant