Search
document

Document text Analytics

FINCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27762/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3600

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

FINCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27762/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3600

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27762/95

by Derek FINCH

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 16 June 1995 by

Derek Finch against the United Kingdom and registered on 30 June 1995

under file No. 27762/95;

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 1960 and resident in

Lincoln. 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 1994 the applicant, then a non-commissioned officer in the

army stationed in Cyprus, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the

Army Act 1955) with six counts of false accounting (a civilian criminal

offence) contrary to the Theft Act 1968.

The Convening Officer convened a district court-martial in Cyprus

to try the applicant on the charges. On 2 June 1994 the applicant

pleaded guilty to all charges and he was sentenced to six months

detention on each count (which sentences were to run concurrently), to

dismissal from the army and to be reduced to the ranks.

The applicant's conviction and sentence were confirmed by the

Confirming Officer on 21 June 1994 and promulgated on 7 July 1994.

On 2 September 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction (the applicant arguing, inter alia, that he was

misled into pleading guilty) and sentence. By letter dated 11 November

1994 the applicant's representative was informed that the Army Board,

who took the decision on this petition, had rejected his petition.

On 14 November 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of

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

to that court. On 6 January 1995 this application was rejected.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal

against conviction before the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court and on

6 March 1995 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 16 June 1995 and was registered

on 30 June 1995.

On 18 October 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