Search
document

Document text Analytics

GOOCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27772/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3601

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

GOOCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 27772/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3601

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27772/95

by Nigel David GOOCH

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 1995 by

Nigel David Gooch against the United Kingdom and registered on

30 June 1995 under file No. 27772/95;

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 1964 and is currently

in prison in Birmingham. 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 6 May 1994 the applicant, who was at the time a Lance Corporal

in the army of the United Kingdom, was convicted by a general court-

martial (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) of the civilian

criminal offence of buggery contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, to dismissal from the

army and to be reduced to the ranks.

On 20 May 1994 the applicant petitioned the Confirming Officer

in relation to his conviction and sentence. On 20 June 1994 the

Confirming Officer confirmed the applicant's conviction and sentence.

On 25 August 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction and sentence. By letter dated 11 October 1994 the

applicant's then representative was informed that the Army Board (who

took the decision on the petition on behalf of the Defence Council) had

rejected the petition.

On 16 October 1994 the applicant applied to a single judge of the

Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court against

his conviction and for an extension of time to do so. On 6 January 1995

the application was rejected by a single judge of that court. Though

the applicant had been out of time in lodging his application, the

single judge considered the merits of the application for leave to

appeal but rejected the application.

On 17 March 1995 the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court, having

also considered the merits of the application for leave to appeal,

refused leave to appeal.

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 nd 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 23 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