Search
document

Document text Analytics

AJINAJA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13365/87 • ECHR ID: 001-334

Document date: March 8, 1988

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

AJINAJA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13365/87 • ECHR ID: 001-334

Document date: March 8, 1988

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 13365/87

by Oladeinde AJINAJA

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 March 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 7 September

1987 by Oladeinde AJINAJA against the United Kingdom and registered

on 26 October 1987 under file No. 13365/87;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria, born in 1952 and

currently detained in H.M. Prison The Verne, Portland, where he is

serving a six year prison sentence for a drug smuggling offence.

This is his second application to the Commission. In his

first application (No. 12749/87, Dec. 15.5.87) the applicant

complained, inter alia, of unlawful arrest, conviction and detention,

contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (a) and (c), and Articles 3 and 4 of

the Convention. The applicant was convicted by a competent court on 1

February 1985, his application for leave to appeal being dismissed by

the Full Court of Appeal on 18 October 1985. The Commission declared

the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

In the present case the applicant claims to have relevant new

information in respect of his original claims, of which he seeks a

second examination by the Commission. He submits that the date of

introduction of the present application should be that of the first,

namely 24 November 1986, or even earlier when he first made inquiries

about the Commission's procedure on 16 November 1985. The purportedly

relevant new information is as follows:-

The applicant states that he was given free legal assistance

for the trial and preparation of the grounds of appeal. Defence

counsel lodged the application for leave to appeal and also applied

for legal aid and leave to call witneses. The single judge refused

all three applications on 14 June 1985. The applicant made further

applications to the Full Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, legal

aid, leave to call witnesses and leave to be present at an eventual

hearing. These applications were refused on 18 October 1985, in the

absence of both defence counsel and the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal denied him

his minimum rights of defence, ensured by Article 6 para. 3 (c) and (d)

of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that the leave to appeal

proceedings before the Court of Appeal breached his rights under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) and (d) (Art. 6-3-c-d) of the Convention which

provide as follows:

"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has

the following minimum rights:

...

c. to defend himself in person or through legal

assistance of his own choosing or, if he has

insufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be

given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d. to examine or have examined witnesses on his behalf

under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

However, the Commission is not competent to deal with the

applicant's complaints because he has failed to observe the six

months' rule laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the

final decision in the case being that of the Court of Appeal on 18

October 1985, but the present complaints not being put before the

Commission until 7 September 1987.

The applicant has contended that these complaints constitute

relevant new information for the purposes of Article 27 para. 1 (b)

(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, which warrant the re-opening of his

previous application (No. 12749/87) with an introduction date of 16

November 1985. The Commission finds, however, that the applicant's

present complaints are entirely different from his original complaints

of unlawful arrest, conviction and sentence, contrary to Article 5

(Art. 5) of the Convention, and do not constitute new information

relevant to the Commission's decision in the first application.

Moreover, the Commission cannot accept, as a basis for reconsidering a

case information, further submissions or re-formulated complaints

which were known to the applicant and could clearly have been

presented by him with the original application. The Commission

concludes, therefore, that there are no grounds for re-opening the

examination of Application No. 12749/87, or for considering the

present application as constituting relevant, new information

necessitating a further examination of the applicant's original

complaints of a breach of Article 5 (Art. 5) of the Convention as a

new case, or for considering the date of introduction of the present

application to be other than that of the applicant's letter dated 7

September 1987 when he first put to the Commission his complaints

under Article 6 para. 3 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention.

In these circumstances, the Commission rejects the present

application for non-observance of the six months' rule, pursuant to

Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant