Search
document

Document text Analytics

PARTOON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24584/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3551

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

PARTOON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 24584/94 • ECHR ID: 001-3551

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 24584/94

by Mark PARTOON

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 8 June 1994 by

Mark Partoon against the United Kingdom and registered on 11 July 1994

under file No. 24584/94;

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 1972 and resident in

Northamptonshire. 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 or around March 1993 the applicant, then a signaller in the

Royal Corps of Signals of the army of the United Kingdom stationed in

Cyprus, was charged (pursuant to section 70(1) of the Army Act 1955)

with the civilian criminal offences of wounding and common assault,

contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences Against the

Person Act 1861, respectively.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 20 April 1993, convened a

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

On 27 April 1993 the court-martial found the applicant guilty and

he was sentenced to dismissal from the army and to be detained for

18 months.

The applicant subsequently petitioned the Confirming Officer.

However, by letter dated 15 June 1993 the applicant's representative

was notified that the conviction and sentence had been confirmed by the

Confirming Officer.

On 18 June 1993 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council. By

letter dated 9 August 1993 the applicant's representative was informed

of the decision, taken by the Army Board, to reject this petition.

On 11 August 1993 the applicant applied to a single judge of the

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

that court. This application was rejected on 22 September 1993.

On 14 October 1993 the applicant renewed his application for

leave to appeal before the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court and this

application was rejected on the 16 May 1994.

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, to be published in

Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and 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 8 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