Search
document

Document text Analytics

BRUCE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31899/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3787

Document date: July 2, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

BRUCE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31899/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3787

Document date: July 2, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31899/96

by Tony BRUCE

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

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 24 May 1996 by

Tony BRUCE against the United Kingdom and registered on 13 June 1996

under file No. 31899/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission and to the respondent Government's

letter dated 26 February 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1954 and resident in

Harrowgate, the United Kingdom. He is represented before the Commission

by Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts as

presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. Particular facts of the case

In September 1994 the applicant, a junior technician in the Royal

Air Force, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Air Force Act

1955) with five counts of indecent assault contrary to the Sexual

Offences Act 1956.

By order dated 28 September 1994 a district court-martial was

convened to try the applicant on the charges. On 2 November 1994 the

applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 9 months

imprisonment and to be dismissed from the air force with disgrace.

The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the

Confirming Officer. On 14 February 1995 the applicant petitioned the

Defence Council against conviction pointing to alleged errors and

misdirections on the part of the Judge Advocate. By letter dated 8 June

1995 the applicant's representatives were informed of the decision,

taken by the Army Board, to reject the applicant's petition.

On 12 June 1995 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the

Courts-Martial Appeal Court against conviction and for an extension of

time to appeal. On 20 July 1995 a single judge of the Courts-Martial

Appeal Court granted the extension of time but refused the applicant's

substantive application. On 15 January 1996 the full Courts-Martial

Appeal Court rejected the applicant's application for leave to appeal

against conviction to that court.

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 24 May 1996 and was registered

on 13 June 1996.

On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application and request the parties' observations.

In their letter received on 7 March 1997 the Government stated

that they have no observations on the admissibility of the application.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. ) 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 of the case.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant