Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27245/95

by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 26 June 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

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 8 December 1994

by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY against the United Kingdom and registered

on 4 May 1995 under file No. 27245/95.

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, an Irish national, is a school teacher and resides

in Armagh (Northern Ireland). Before the Commission he is represented

by McGrory & Company, solicitors practising in Belfast.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

On 24 June 1990, at 2.50 pm, the applicant, while driving his

car, was arrested by the police in connection with the detonation of

a landmine which had occurred at about 1.55 pm the same day and had

caused the death of four persons.

Criminal proceedings were instituted against him on an

unspecified date.

On 5 June 1992 the applicant was convicted by the Crown Court of

Northern Ireland on four murder charges and a number of associated

charges relating to the above-mentioned killings and was sentenced to

life imprisonment. The Court based its conviction mainly on forensic

evidence establishing a link between the bombing and the applicant.

In particular, the trial judge considered as highly relevant the

reports produced on behalf of the Crown by two scientists, Doctor I.

and Doctor F.

On 18 June 1992 the applicant filed an appeal before the Court

of Appeal. In his grounds of appeal, lodged on 9 September 1992, he

contested the findings of the Crown Court that he had been involved in

the bombing operation. The applicant requested the Court of Appeal to

restrict his criminal liability to the offence of assisting offenders

under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.

On 15 December 1992 the Court of Appeal fixed the date for the

hearing as 17 May 1993.

However, on 7 May 1993 the applicant's counsel applied for an

adjournment of the hearing. The request was based on the fact that,

since the applicant was not satisfied with the evidence produced before

the trial judge, he wanted to obtain a supplementary forensic report.

On 18 June 1993 the adjournment was granted, and the hearing was fixed

for 27 September 1993.

On 10 September 1993 the applicant's counsel applied again for

an adjournment as his counsel was involved in another trial. The

adjournment was granted on 23 October 1993 and the hearing was then

postponed until 6 December 1993.

The report of a forensic expert, Doctor N.S., engaged by the

applicant, was ready on 4 October 1993. The applicant considered that

the forensic issues had not been properly investigated, and formulated

new questions for the expert on 25 October 1993.

On 30 November 1993, the counsel for the applicant requested a

new adjournment, as the additional questions had not yet been answered

by the forensic scientist. The Court of Appeal refused to grant a new

adjournment on the basis that it had already granted numerous

adjournments in order to facilitate the applicant's defence and that

18 months had passed between the conviction of the applicant and the

appeal, a period which was long enough to allow the applicant to

investigate the matters relating to the forensic evidence.

The new forensic report answering the applicant's questions was

ready on 1 December 1993, but the applicant's counsel received it only

on 6 December 1993.

On 3 December 1993 the applicant dismissed his counsel. On

6 December 1993 he appeared in person before the Court of Appeal. He

informed the Court that he was not properly prepared, as he had ordered

a new forensic report which was due to be ready in six weeks time.

Examining the applicant's new request, the Court noted that the

decision of the applicant to dismiss his experienced counsel after

repeated adjournments of the hearing appeared to have no justification,

but was merely an attempt to delay and obstruct the hearing of the

appeal. The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had not

produced to the Court any forensic report in support of his

applications for adjournments, that the grounds of appeal lodged by the

applicant three months after the conviction made no reference to

forensic science points, and that no additional grounds containing such

points were ever lodged. The Court came to the conclusion that there

were no additional issues relating to the forensic evidence which could

have been raised on the appeal.

In examining the appeal, the Court considered the judgment of the

trial judge as well as all possible points which in the view of the

Court could have been advanced on behalf of the applicant on appeal.

The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant did not contest the

facts as they had been established by the Crown Court, that the trial

court had heard his father as a witness and that the applicant himself

had given oral evidence.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had considered

in detail all the arguments in defence advanced on behalf of the

applicant and that his conviction on all counts was satisfactory.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (b) of the

Convention that, because of the refusal of the Court of Appeal to

adjourn the hearing on the appeal, he did not have adequate time or

facilities to properly prepare for his defence.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal rejected his

application for another adjournment of the hearing, although he needed

time to obtain further comments concerning the forensic evidence. He

invokes Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b), which provides, so far as

relevant, as follows :

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights :

[...]

b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of

his defence;

[...]"

As the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 6 (Art. 6)

are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under

paragraph 1, the Commission will consider these complaints in the light

of the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities,

Eur. Court H.R., Melin v. France judgment of 22 June 1993, Series A no.

261-A, p. 11, para. 21, and Hadjianastassiou v. Greece judgment of

16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, para. 31).

The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b) has

been interpreted as implying that the substantive defence activity on

behalf of the accused may comprise everything which is "necessary" to

prepare for the main trial. The accused must have the opportunity to

organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as

to the possibility to put all arguments relevant to his defence before

the trial court, and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings

(Can v. Austria, Comm. Report 12.7.84, par. 53, Eur. Court H.R., Series

A no. 96, p.17).

In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant was

heard by the Crown Court and that he called his father as a witness.

Furthermore, before the Court of Appeal the applicant requested

and obtained two adjournments of the hearing, on 18 June 1993 and

23 October 1993. A third request for adjournment was refused on

30 November 1993, on the ground that the applicant had had ample time

for the preparation of his defence. Moreover, the Court of Appeal

noted that the applicant had neither lodged any grounds of appeal

concerning the forensic science points, nor had he presented any of the

forensic reports he had obtained.

The Commission observes that the applicant, who had had 18 months

for the preparation of his defence, did not provide objective elements

to justify his numerous requests for adjournment of the hearing before

the Court of Appeal. Rather, the applicant appeared to be dissatisfied

with the conclusions reached by the expert acting on his behalf.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the refusal

of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the hearing of 6 December 1993 did

not infringe the applicant's rights of defence, nor did it deprive him

of a fair trial.

It follows that the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-

founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI