Lexploria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 October 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

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

Having regard to Art. 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 9 September 1984 by

J.K. against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 October 1985

under file No. 11819/85;

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 British citizen born in 1957 and resident in

Glasgow. The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

On the evening of 23 April 1983, the applicant accompanied friends to

a party in a house in Glasgow. The applicant found himself the

object of hostility by others at the party and was preparing to leave

when a full-scale battle erupted, in which several people received

stab-wounds and the applicant himself received injuries in the neck

and head from being struck by a glass bottle. One of the men at the

party died after receiving a knife-wound in the heart.

The applicant was subsequently arrested in London on 23 October 1983

and charged on 17 counts, including one charge of murder and other

charges of assault, criminal damage and breach of the peace. The

applicant's defence was that any injuries he caused were inflicted in

self-defence or by accident.

The applicant was tried in the High Court before a jury in February

1984 and found guilty of murder and the majority of the other charges.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal was refused on

13 June 1984.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he did not receive a fair trial as the

police failed to carry out a proper investigation of the scene of the

crime, e.g. looking for fingerprints on broken glass and identifying

the various bloodstains to be found in the house. He also complains

that the judge removed the issue of diminished responsibility from the

consideration of the jury and failed to instruct the jury properly and

fairly on the evidence submitted by the Crown and the defence.

He further complains that he did not have adequate time for the

preparation of his defence and that he was dissatisfied with the

conduct of his case by his counsel. He also alleges that he has been

deprived of the right of self-defence.

He accordingly invokes Article 2 (art. 2), Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) and Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b) of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the police failure to investigate

fully the scene of the crime and the judge's directions to the jury

regarding the evidence deprived him of a fair trial. He also

complains in this context of the conduct of his defence counsel.

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention provides that in the

determination 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.

a) As regards the applicants complaints concerning his defence

counsel, the Commission recalls that under Article 25 para. 1

(art. 25-1) of the Convention, the Commission may only admit an

application from a person, non-governmental organisation or group of

individuals, where the applicant alleges a violation by one of the

Contracting Parties of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention and where that Party has recognised this competence of the

Commission. The Commission may not, therefore, admit applications

directed against private individuals. In this respect the Comission

refers to its constant jurisprudence (see e.g. Applications

No. 172/56, Dec. 20.12.57, Yearbook 1 pp. 211, 215 and No. 3925/69,

Dec. 2.3.83, Collection 32 pp. 56, 58).

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione

personae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(art. 27-2) of the Convention.

b) As regards the applicant's remaining complaints concerning the

fairness of his trial, the Commission recalls that in accordance with

its constant jurisprudence the question of whether a trial conforms to

the standards laid down in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) must be

decided on the basis of an evaluation of the trial in its entirety and

not on the basis of an isolated consideration of particular incidents

or particular aspects of the trial (see e.g. Application No. 343/57,

Dec. 2.9.59, Yearbook 4 p. 548 and Application No. 5574/72,

Dec. 21.3.75, D.R. 3 p. 10).

The Commission has accordingly looked at the applicant's trial as a

whole on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant. An

examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been

submitted does not however disclose any appearance of a violation of

Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains of not receiving adequate time

and facilities for the preparation of his defence.

The Commission recalls however that the applicant was arrested on

28 October 1983 and that his trial took place in February 1984. The

applicant was represented by a solicitor and counsel. The Commission

has examined this complaint as it has been submitted by the applicant

but finds that the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim that

he did not receive adequate time or facilities for his defence.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the facts do not disclose

any appearance of a violation of Article 6 para. 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b)

of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3. The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 2

(art. 2) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 2 para. 2

sub-para (a) (art. 2-2-a).

Article 2 (art. 2) provides:

"Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be

deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence

of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty

is provided by law.

Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in

contravention of this Article (art. 2) when it results from the use of

force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;..."

Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention however is an obligation placed

on the High Contracting Parties in respect of the right to life. The

applicant has failed to establish that his life has in any way been

endangered by any act for which the United Kingdom Government is

responsible.

The Commission accordingly finds that on the facts of the application

as presented by the applicant there cannot be said to have been any

interference with the applicant's right to life contrary to Article 2

(art. 2) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is 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.

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI