Search
document

Document text Analytics

WARDLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30462/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3641

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

WARDLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 30462/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3641

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30462/96

by Paul WARDLE

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 6 March 1996 by

Paul Wardle against the United Kingdom and registered on 15 March 1996

under file No. 30462/96;

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 1962 and resident in

Clwyd, Wales. 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 July 1994 the applicant, who was a non-commissioned officer

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

Force Act 1955) with the civilian criminal offence of theft contrary

to the Theft Act 1968.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 24 August 1994, convened

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

28 September 1994 the court-martial found the applicant guilty. He was

sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to be dismissed from the air

force, to be reduced to the ranks and to stoppages in pay in the sum

of £1593.00.

The Confirming Officer subsequently confirmed the applicant's

conviction and sentence.

On 15 December 1994 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction. By letter dated 8 June 1995 the applicant's

representative was informed of the decision, taken by the Air Force

Board, to reject this petition.

On 12 June 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of the

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

conviction. He also applied for an extension of time in which to do so

and for legal aid for the appeal. In August 1995 the single judge

allowed the application for leave to appeal in relation to an argument

as regards one of the Judge Advocate's directions.

On 22 January 1996 the full Courts-Martial Appeal Court dismissed

the applicant's appeal.

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 6 March 1996 and was registered

on 15 March 1996.

On 15 May 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