Search
document

Document text Analytics

SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30236/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3631

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

SMITH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30236/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3631

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30236/96

by Gareth Edward SMITH

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 2 February 1996

by Gareth Edward Smith against the United Kingdom and registered on

16 February 1996 under file No. 30236/96;

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 1970 and resident in

Lincolnshire. 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 1995 the applicant, who was a Senior Aircraftman in the

Royal Air Force, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Air Force

Act 1955) with the civilian criminal offence of assault contrary to the

Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was also charged with disobeying an order

and with drunkenness, both contrary to the Air Force Act 1955.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 28 June 1995, convened a

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

4 July 1995 the court-martial found the applicant guilty as charged.

He was sentenced to 112 days detention and to be dismissed from the air

force.

Subsequently, the Confirming Officer did not confirm that part

of the applicant's sentence relating to his dismissal but confirmed the

sentence insofar as it related to the applicant's detention.

On 14 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction. The applicant argued that the findings were unsafe

and unsatisfactory because of a lack of reliable identification of the

applicant, the use of unreliable evidence of two policemen, the lack

of supporting evidence from the guardroom and numerous contradictions

and discrepancies in the prosecution's case. He also argued that the

findings were against the weight of the evidence and were perverse. By

letter dated 1 November 1995 the applicant's representative was

informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force Board, to reject this

petition.

On 1 November 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of the

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

conviction and for an extension of time in which to do so. The

applicant raised the same grounds as before the Defence Council. While

the extension of time was granted, on 11 January 1996 this application

was rejected. The single judge found that the decision was neither

unsafe or unsatisfactory there being evidence upon which the findings

could be justifiably based.

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 2 February 1996 and was

registered on 16 February 1996.

On 12 April 1996 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