Search
document

Document text Analytics

POTTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30276/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3633

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

POTTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30276/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3633

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30276/96

by Nicholas John POTTER

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 14 February 1996

by Nicholas John Potter against the United Kingdom and registered on

23 February 1996 under file No. 30276/96;

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

Cambridgeshire. 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 April 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 occasioning

actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act

1861. The Convening Officer, by order dated 11 May 1995, convened a

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

7 June 1995 the court-martial found the applicant guilty. He was

sentenced to 84 days detention and to pay £50 compensation.

The Confirming Officer confirmed the applicant's conviction and

sentence.

On 4 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction and sentence. The applicant argued that, since the

police had not released primary jurisdiction to the air force

authorities, the court-martial did not have jurisdiction in the matter.

The applicant also submitted that, in light of several factors, the

sentence was manifestly excessive. By letter dated 22 September 1995

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

the Air Force Board) to reject this petition.

On 26 September 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of

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

against conviction again claiming a lack of jurisdiction on the part

of the court-martial. On 21 December 1995 this application was

rejected, the single judge pointing out that this point should have

been raised by the applicant before he pleaded to the charges during

the court-martial itself.

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).

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 14 February 1996 and was

registered on 23 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