Search
document

Document text Analytics

RODGERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27357/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3588

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

RODGERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27357/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3588

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27357/95

by Christopher RODGERS

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 24 April 1995 by

Christopher Rodgers against the United Kingdom and registered on

16 May 1995 under file No. 27357/95;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

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 1973 and is currently

resident in Motherwell. 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 August 1994 the applicant, then a Senior Aircraftman in the

Royal Air Force, was charged with making a hoax bomb call and being

absent without leave contrary to sections 69 and 37 of the Air Force

Act 1955.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 31 August 1994, convened

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

applicant pleaded guilty to the charges against him at the court-

martial hearing. On 31 October 1994 the court-martial sentenced the

applicant to detention for 15 months and to dismissal from the air

force.

On 23 November 1994 the applicant submitted a petition against

his sentence to the Confirming Officer. By letter dated 1 December 1994

the applicant's representative was informed that the applicant's

sentence had been confirmed by the Confirming Officer.

The applicant subsequently presented an appeal petition to the

Defence Council. By letter dated 1 March 1995 the decision to reject

this petition, taken by the Air Force Board, was communicated to the

applicant's representative.

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 24 April 1995 and was

registered on 16 May 1995.

On 4 July 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