THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1931 and at

present resident at M..

He first wrote to the Commission on 22nd January 1968, complaining that

he had been convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for

an offence of housebreaking which he had not committed.

He alleged that the trial judge was biased against him and misdirected

the jury by distorting the evidence;  that his conviction was based

only on a vague and insufficient identification by a woman who had been

his mistress;  and that the police had failed to investigate his

alleged alibi. He further complained that the prison authorities had

obstructed his correspondence with his solicitor, and that as a result

new evidence was not put before the Court of Appeal and his application

for leave to appeal rejected. He alleged violations of Article 6, (1),

(2) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), and of Article 8, (1) and (2) of the

Convention.

His application No. 3542/68 was registered on 8 March 1968. On 31

October 1968, he was sent a letter from the Secretariat asking him to

confirm that he intended to maintain his application and to submit any

further information which he might wish to put before the Commission.

No reply was received to this letter, nor to a similar letter sent by

recorded delivery on 18 November 1968. The applicant had stated, in the

last letter received from him, dated 6 April 1968, that he would send

copies of the transcript of the judge's summing-up at the trial, the

notice of appeal with his grounds of appeal and the judgment of the

Court of Appeal. On 3 February 1969 nothing further having been heard

from the applicant, the Commission decided to strike the application

off the list.

A letter dated 7 February 1969 informing the applicant of the

Commission's decision, was returned by the prison authorities in London

with the remark that his address was not known. However, on 17 March

1969, the applicant wrote from H.M. Prison, Oxford, sending a copy of

his petition to the Home Secretary. It appears that he had meanwhile

asked a probation officer, Mr. D., to obtain various documents in

support of his application and to forward them to the Commission. In

a letter dated 3 January 1969, the applicant had sent some of the

documents to Mr. D., but there was a delay in obtaining other documents

and the letter from Mr. D. enclosing all the documents was sent only

on 11 April 1969.

The applicant was subsequently sent another application form, and his

new application was registered on 2 June 1969. He was told that it

would be necessary for the Commission to decide the date upon which his

application would be considered as having been introduced. The

application is substantially the same as the previous application, but

is supported by considerable documentation.

From the documents submitted, it appears that the applicant was

convicted and sentenced on .. March 1966;  his applications for leave

to appeal and to call further witnesses were refused by the full court

of the Court of Criminal Appeal on .. July 1966. Subsequently, he

attempted to appeal to the House of Lords, representations were made

on his behalf to the Home Secretary, and he made numerous petitions

asking for an enquiry into his conviction.

THE LAW

Whereas the Commission referred to its decision of 3 February 1969, by

which it decided to strike application No. 3452/68 off its list of

cases; whereas the Commission then considered the question whether or

not the applicant was entitled to have this application restored to the

Commission's list and to have it examined by the Commission as to the

question of its admissibility;

Whereas the Commission has previously held that an applicant may have

his application restored to the Commission's list of cases where the

circumstances of the case as a whole justify such restoration (cf.

application No. 2840/66);

Whereas, in the present case, the applicant had apparently failed to

send to the Commission certain documents in support of his application;

Whereas, however, it subsequently appeared that the applicant had in

fact sent these documents, while in prison, to a person acting on his

behalf in order that they should be forwarded to the Commission;

whereas moreover the delay in transmitting the documents does not

appear to be attributable to any fault of the applicant; whereas

therefore the Commission finds that, in the circumstances, there is a

justification for restoring application No. 3542/68 to its list;

Whereas the Commission having regard to the complaints in application

No. 4099/69, decided to join the two application for the purpose of

considering the question of their admissibility;

Whereas, in these circumstances, it is to be observed that under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission may only deal

with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the

final decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the Court of

Criminal Appeal refusing the applicant's application for leave to

appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of the

applicant's complaints, was given on .. July 1966; whereas application

No. 3542/68 was not submitted to the Commission until 22 January 1968,

and application No. 4099/69 not until 17 March 1969, that is, in both

cases, more than six months after the date of this decision;

Whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or

suspended the running of that period;

Whereas it follows that the applications have been lodged out of time

(Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention);

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE