Search
document

Document text Analytics

D. S. v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14067/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1106

Document date: July 6, 1989

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

D. S. v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 14067/88 • ECHR ID: 001-1106

Document date: July 6, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14067/88

by D. S.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 6 July 1989, the following members being present:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

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. L. LOUCAIDES

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 21 June 1988

by D. S. against the United Kingdom and registered on 29 July 1988

under file No. 14067/88;

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, D. S., is a citizen of the United Kingdom born

in 1959. He is at present detained at HM Prison, Shotts, Lanarkshire.

The facts submitted may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was tried, on charges of murder and assault by

punching following a stabbing incident, before the High Court at

Dunfermline on 7 August 1986. The applicant had gone to his

girl-friend's parents' house with a knife after she had indicated her

intention of leaving him. The door of the house was opened by his

girl-friend's father and a fight ensued during which the father

received at least three severe wounds from the knife held by the

applicant, one of which penetrated a lung and was fatal.

The principal evidence against the accused was given by his

girl-friend who stated that she saw the accused dragging the deceased

by the hair outside the house. She indicated that when she went

outside she saw her father staggering towards the window and the

accused running at him with a knife. She further stated that she saw

her father holding the accused's wrist with the knife in it. Other

evidence against the accused related to the nature and position of the

stab wounds. The applicant stated in his defence that he was attacked

by his girl-friend's father and that the knife fell out of his pocket.

He picked it up and in his attempting to fend him off he, without any

intention to do so, stabbed him. In his evidence to the court,

the applicant stated inter alia that the stabbing was an accident.

The trial judge did not consider that self-defence was open to

the applicant in these circumstances since it required a deliberate

act by the victim of an attack for his own protection. He did,

however, allow the plea of self-defence in relation to the charge of

assault by punching, since the applicant had indicated in his evidence

that he punched his girl-friend's father in order to protect himself

from the attack. The jury found the applicant guilty of both charges

by a majority verdict and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On an appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, the court

considered that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and ought to

have allowed the plea of self-defence to be considered. The Court

considered that the applicant's evidence had been ambiguous as to

whether the stabbing was accidental or whether he was defending

himself.

However, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case

this could not have made any difference to the outcome and in any

event there was no miscarriage of justice because:

(a) the trial judge in his direction reminded the jury of the

applicant's evidence and his version of the events and informed them

that if they believed such version or if they had any reasonable

doubts as to its correctness, it was their duty to acquit him;

(b) the jury having rejected the question of self-defence in relation

to the punching of the victim by the applicant and the quarrel which

ended in the fatal stabbing of the victim by the applicant would not

reasonably have accepted that such stabbing occurred in the course of

self-defence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant considers that he was not given a fair hearing

as a result of the misdirection by the trial judge and that the appeal

court ought to have ordered a re-trial. He invokes Article 6 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that he did not receive a fair trial. In particular he

complains that the trial judge was found to have misdirected the jury

and that the High Court of Justiciary did not order a re-trial.

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) first sentence of the Convention

provides:

1. In the determination of his civil rights and

obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone

is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable

time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by

law.

With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant

complains, the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance

of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its established

case-law (see e.g. No. 458/59, Dec. 29.3.60, Yearbook 3 pp. 222, 236;

No. 5258/71, Dec. 8.2.73, Collection 43 pp. 71, 77; No. 7987/77, Dec.

13.12.79, D.R. 18 pp. 31, 45).

In the present case there is no indication from the documents

submitted by the applicant that the proceedings were unfair. In

particular the Commission notes that the High Court of Justiciary upheld

the applicant's claim that the trial judge had misdirected the jury

but found that in the circumstances of the case this could not have

made any difference to the outcome since the applicant's version of

the facts which constituted the basis of the applicant's defence was

placed before the jury who were instructed to acquit the applicant if

they believed such version or had a reasonable doubt as to its

correctness. In addition, the jury rejected the plea of self-defence

in respect of the charge of assault by punching.

In these circumstances the Commission does not consider that

the rights of the defence were prejudiced by the observation of the

trial judge. It follows that the application must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (J. A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant