Search
document

Document text Analytics

LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31399/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3647

Document date: April 9, 1997

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

LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 31399/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3647

Document date: April 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 31399/96

by David Glen LEWIS

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 3 May 1996 by

David Glen Lewis against the United Kingdom and registered on

7 May 1996 under file No. 31399/96;

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 1964 and resident in

Mid Glamorgan. 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 late 1995 the applicant, who was a non-commissioned officer

in the Royal Air Force stationed in Germany, 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 20 September 1995, convened

a district court-martial to try the applicant. The court-martial took

place in Germany on 27 October 1995. The applicant pleaded guilty. He

was sentenced to nine months detention, to be reduced to the ranks and

to dismissal from the air force. He was also ordered to pay £500.00

compensation for the personal injury caused.

By letter dated 28 November 1995 to the applicant's

representative, the Confirming Officer indicated that he had varied the

applicant's sentence by specifying that the applicant was to be put

under stoppages of pay until he had paid the compensation.

On 14 December 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against sentence. By letter dated 12 March 1996 the applicant's

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

Board, to reject this petition.

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 3 May 1996 and was registered

on 7 May 1996.

On 26 June 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application and on the 2 July 1996 the Commission decided that

observations should be requested.

In their letter received on 5 December 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