Search
document

Document text Analytics

ELLIOTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24582/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3549

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

ELLIOTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24582/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3549

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24582/94

by Peter Mowbray ELLIOTT

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 23 June 1994 by

Peter Mowbray Elliott against the United Kingdom and registered on

11 July 1994 under file No. 24582/94;

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 1957 and resident in

Surrey. 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 1993 the applicant was a sergeant in the Royal Air Force of

the United Kingdom stationed in Germany. In August 1993 he was charged

by the air force authorities with using threatening, abusive, insulting

or provocative behaviour likely to cause a disturbance contrary to

section 43A(b) of the Air Force Act 1955 and with doing an act tending

and intended to pervert the course of justice contrary to section 70(1)

of the Air Force Act 1955.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 24 August 1993, convened

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

The court-martial took place at Bruggen, Germany on 25-27 August

1993 and the applicant was found guilty of both offences. The court-

martial sentenced the applicant to dismissal with disgrace from the air

force, to be detained for nine months and to be reduced to the ranks.

On 15 October 1993 the applicant presented a petition to the

Confirming officer. However, by letter dated 11 November 1993 the

applicant's representative was notified that the conviction and

sentence had been confirmed by the Confirming Officer.

The applicant then presented an appeal petition to the Defence

Council. However, by letter dated 7 February 1994 the applicant's

representative was notified of the decision, taken by the Air Force

Board, to reject this petition.

On 10 May 1994 the applicant was refused, by a single judge of

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

that court.

The applicant's subsequent renewal of that application to the

full Courts-Martial Appeal Court was rejected on 14 July 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 23 June 1994 and was registered

on 11 July 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