Search
document

Document text Analytics

CABLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24436/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3545

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

CABLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24436/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3545

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24436/94

by Nicholas Robert CABLE

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 6 June 1994 by

Nicholas Robert Cable against the United Kingdom and registered on

20 June 1994 under file No. 24436/94;

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 1968 and resident in

Stamford. 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 May 1993 the applicant, then a corporal in the Royal Air

Force, was charged pursuant to section 70(1) of the Air Force Act 1955

with the civilian criminal offence of indecent assault contrary to the

Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 8 June 1993, convened a

district court-martial to try the applicant on the charge.

The court-martial took place on 5-7 July 1993. On 7 July 1993 the

applicant was found guilty and the court-martial sentenced him to

dismissal from the air force, to be detained for nine months and to be

reduced to the ranks.

The conviction and sentence of the court-martial were

subsequently confirmed by the Confirming Officer.

The applicant then presented an appeal petition to the Defence

Council. By letter dated 27 October 1993 the decision on this petition,

taken by the Air Force Board, was communicated to the applicant's

representative. The applicant's conviction and sentence were upheld by

the Air Force Board except the period of detention was reduced to six

months.

On 20 December 1993 the applicant's application to a single judge

of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, for leave to appeal to that court

against conviction, was rejected.

The subsequent application to the full Courts-Martial Appeal

Court for leave to appeal against conviction was rejected on

28 April 1994.

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 6 June 1994 and was registered

on 20 June 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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant