Search
document

Document text Analytics

BATTLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26271/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3569

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

BATTLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 26271/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3569

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 26271/95

by Stephen Edward BATTLE

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 21 December 1994

by Stephen Edward Battle against the United Kingdom and registered on

24 January 1995 under file No. 26271/95;

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 1969 and resident in

Derby. 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.

On 7 January 1994 the applicant, then a private in the armed

forces of the United Kingdom stationed in Cyprus, was charged (pursuant

to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with the civilian criminal offence

of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the

Person Act 1861.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 25 January 1994, convened

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

9 February 1994 the court-martial sitting in Hampshire found the

applicant guilty and he was sentenced to eleven months detention and

to stoppages of pay until compensation was paid to the victim.

On 17 February 1994 the applicant petitioned the Confirming

Officer against conviction and sentence. The applicant's conviction and

sentence were confirmed by the Confirming Officer and his conviction

was promulgated on 17 March 1994.

On 28 March 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction and sentence. By letter dated 29 April 1994 the

applicant's representative was informed of the decision, taken by the

Army Board, to reject the petition.

On 4 May 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of the

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

that court. On 11 August 1994 this application was rejected.

On 15 August 1994 the applicant renewed his application for leave

to appeal against conviction before the full Courts-Martial Appeal

Court and on 15 November 1994 this application was rejected by the full

court.

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 21 December 1994 and was

registered on 24 January 1995.

On 17 May 1995 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