Search
document

Document text Analytics

NASH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 32024/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3788

Document date: July 2, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

NASH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 32024/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3788

Document date: July 2, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32024/96

by Francisco Javier NASH

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 18 June 1996 by

Francisco Javier NASH against the United Kingdom and registered on

25 June 1996 under file No. 32024/96;

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

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

dated 26 March 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1960 and resident in

Manchester. He is represented before the Commission by Gilbert Blades,

a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts of the case as submitted

by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case

By charge sheet dated 16 September 1994 the applicant, then a

non-commissioned officer in the British army stationed in Germany, was

charged (pursuant to section 70(1) of the Army Act 1955) with assault

occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against The

Person Act 1861.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 1 December 1994, convened

a district court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. On

5 January 1995 the applicant was found guilty as charged and was

sentenced to 140 days detention and to be reduced to the ranks. He was

also fined £400.00.

The Confirming Officer confirmed the applicant's conviction and

sentence which were then promulgated on 20 February 1995. By letter

dated 7 April 1995 the applicant's representative was informed of the

decision, taken by the Army Board, to reject the applicant's subsequent

petition to the Defence Council. On 30 May 1995 the application for

leave to appeal against conviction to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court

("CMAC") was rejected by a single judge of that court. On 8 June 1995

the applicant lodged a renewed application for leave to appeal against

conviction to the full CMAC which application was rejected by that

court on 18 July 1995.

It is not disputed that the applicant was not notified of the

date that the full CMAC was to hand down its decision and that no

notification of that court's decision was sent to him until his

solicitor commenced enquiries. The applicant's solicitor wrote to the

Registrar of the CMAC on 25 April 1996 enquiring about the result of

the application. On 14 May 1996 the Registrar of the CMAC informed the

applicant's representative that the application had been rejected on

18 July 1995.

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, Reports 1997-I,

No. 30) and in its report on the Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm.

Report 25.6.96, unpublished).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 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 18 June 1996 and was registered

on 25 June 1996.

On 17 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the

application and to request the parties' observations.

In their letter received on 2 April 1997 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 notes that, while he accepts that the decision of

the full CMAC may have been handed down in open court, the applicant

claims that neither he nor his solicitor was informed of the date that

court would hand down its decision. He also submits that a copy of the

order of the court is, in the normal course of events, sent to the

appellant but that this was not done in his case. The Government have

no observations, inter alia, on the applicant's submissions in this

respect. In such circumstances, the Commission considers that the

application was introduced within six months of the date when, it is

not disputed, the applicant's solicitor was notified of the rejection

of the applicant's appeal to the full CMAC namely, in May 1996.

Accordingly, the Commission considers that the application has been

introduced within the time-limit set down by Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention (No. 14056/88, Dec. 28.5.91, D.R. 70 p. 208).

The Commission also 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