Search
document

Document text Analytics

ABROL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12845/87 • ECHR ID: 001-492

Document date: October 7, 1987

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

ABROL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 12845/87 • ECHR ID: 001-492

Document date: October 7, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 12845/87

by Kewal Krishan ABROL

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 October 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy 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 27 October 1986

by Kewal Krishan ABROL against the United Kingdom and registered on

7 April 1987 under file No. 12845/87;

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 an Indian citizen born in 1927 and resident

in Birmingham. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be

summarised as follows.

On 7 January 1981, the applicant, a dentist, carried out an

emergency extraction on a patient who died shortly afterwards. The

applicant was charged with manslaughter and was convicted on

26 October 1981. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months

imprisonment suspended for 2 years and fined £1000. He was granted

leave to appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal

on 13 July 1982.

The applicant subsequently applied to the Secretary of State

for a reference under S.17(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 on the

ground that forensic medical evidence had become available which cast

doubt on the cause of death alleged by the prosecution. The Secretary

of State sought independent forensic medical advice, as a result of

which he made a reference under the 1968 Act to the Court of Appeal,

which on 11 July 1983, quashed the applicant's conviction.

The General Dental Council (hereafter referred to as the

G.D.C.) had previously initiated disciplinary proceedings against the

applicant but these were adjourned pending the outcome of the

reference to the Court of Appeal. Following the quashing of the

conviction the applicant was informed by letter dated 12 July 1983

that disciplinary proceedings would not be resumed.

On 2 August 1983, however, the applicant received a letter

from the G.D.C., which stated their intention to summon the applicant

before the Disciplinary Committee on a charge of infamous or

disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. This hearing, at which

the applicant was represented by counsel, was held on 10 November

1983. The Committee found, inter alia, that the applicant had failed

to have a second qualified person present when conducting an

extraction under general anaesthetic, that he had left the patient

unattended and that he had failed to have sufficient resuscitation

equipment available. They accordingly found the applicant guilty of

disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and erased the

applicant's name from their Register. The applicant would be able,

however, under the Dentists Act 1984 to apply after 10 months for

restoration of his name to the Register.

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Privy

Council. This appeal was dismissed on 10 April 1984.

The applicant subsequently applied to the G.D.C. for

restoration to the Register. His application was refused on 15 May

1985 and 14 May 1986.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of being subjected to inhuman and

degrading treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3 of the

Convention, inter alia, in that the G.D.C. re-opened the disciplinary

proceedings after his conviction was quashed and that the G.D.C. have

refused to reinstate him.

The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 6 para.

2 in that following the quashing of his conviction, the G.D.C. brought

disciplinary proceedings against him and thereby ignored the fact that

the courts found him innocent.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the disciplinary proceedings

brought against him by the General Dental Council (the G.D.C.)

constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, contrary

to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and breached the presumption of

innocence guaranteed by Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).

However, the Commission is unable to deal with this aspect of

the case as the applicant has failed to observe the six months' rule laid down

in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. The final decision in the

disciplinary proceedings was that of the Privy Council on 10 April 1984, but

the applicant first lodged his complaints with the Commission on 27 October

1986, more than six months later. It follows that this part of the application

must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

2. The applicant has also alleged that the refusal of the G.D.C.

to restore his name to the Dentists' Register constitutes a further

breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. However the Commission finds

that the refusal cannot be said to amount to the serious ill-treatment

proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3). It must, therefore, reject this part of the

application as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant