British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3827/68 [1969] ECHR 18 (15 December 1969)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1969/3827_68.html
Cite as: [1969] ECHR 18
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
X. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3827/68 [1969] ECHR 18 (15 December 1969)
THE FACTS Whereas, the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows: The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1932 and at present detained in Wakefield Prison. From his statements and from documents submitted by him it appears that he was convicted of murder on .. January, 1966 at Warwick Assizes and sentenced to imprisonment for the time of his natural life. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on .. May 1966. The applicant claims that the justice has not been done in his case because of the procedure after his arrest, during his trial and during the hearing of his appeal. He alleges that a fair trial would have led to his conviction for manslaughter only. In the first place he alleges that his trial was unfair and biased in that the defence solicitors knew the girl that he had murdered and also her employer, whom the applicant believes to be a key-witness. Secondly, he states that evidence given at his trial should never have been allowed. This includes supposedly hearsay evidence given by a Mr H, a friend of the dead girl. Mr H gave evidence during the applicant's trial that the victim had previously told him that the applicant had attempted to strangle her. The applicant contends that this evidence should not have been admitted since it is purely hearsay and highly prejudicial. He further complains that the judge not only failed to reject it but actually condoned it and praised the witness, Mr H as being highly reliable. The applicant further attacks the evidence of an eye-witness whom he accuses of perjury. This witness had given evidence in the magistrates court contrary to the evidence which he gave in a previous statement to the police. At the trial in the High Court he then reverted to the terms of this original statement. The applicant claims that this evidence should have been disallowed and the witness discredited. Further defects alleged in the trial are a failure to include all the photographs of the victim and also failure to ascertain the exact nature of his relationship with the victim. The applicant claims that, as a result of these defects, the jury was led to believe he was a liar and were further prejudiced by the attitude of the judge on these points. Finally, as concerns the trial at first instance, the applicant complains of the verdict as expressed in the words "for natural life". He considers that this is a totally unwarranted sentence in regard to the circumstances surrounding his offense. In the third place the applicant alleges that his appeal was conducted unfairly. He complains that he was unrepresented before the appeal court although it appears from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal that he in fact dispensed with the services of his original counsel and that the new counsel informed him that nothing effective could be done. The applicant also contends that the judges in the appeal court made at least one vital mistake in the facts of his case and that this vitiated the entire decision. Further, as regards the appeal, the applicant states that he was unable to bring a key-witness, the victim's employer, before the court and that this was due to a refusal by his solicitors to obey his wishes. The applicant alleges violations of Articles 3, 5, paragraph (2), 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) (d), 7 10, paragraph (2), 13, 14, 17, 26, 32, paragraph (1) of the Convention. He states that he wishes to receive justice. The applicant also alleges that his communications with the Commission have been mislaid or delayed. The Governor of Wakefield Prison states that after exhaustive enquiries he was unable to trace any record of the relevant papers and that the applicant was advised of the correct procedure to ensure that these events did not reoccur. The applicant seems nevertheless to have completed his case. THE LAW Whereas, with regard to the applicant's complaint concerning his conviction, and sentence and the court proceedings concerned, it is to be observed that, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may only deal with a matter "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken"; and whereas the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of this complaint, was given on .. May 1966; whereas the present application was not submitted to the Commission until .. February 1968, that is more than six months after the date of this decision; whereas, furthermore, an examination of the case does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended the running of that period; whereas it follows that the application has been lodged out of time (Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention); Whereas, the Commission has also considered the applicant's complaints that he was hindered in the effective exercise of the right to lodge an application with the Commission; whereas he alleges, in particular, that, subsequent to his first letter to the Commission, other letters sent by him to the Commission's Secretary have not been transmitted by the authorities of Wakefield Prison; Whereas the Commission observes in this respect that the applicant has, in fact, made substantial submissions and been able to present his case in a completely adequate manner; whereas, in these circumstances, the Commission considers that he has not been hindered in the effective exercise of the right to lodge an application as guaranteed in Article 25, paragraph (1) (Art. 25-1), in fine, of the Convention. Now therefore the Commission 1. DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE 2. DECIDES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED INTERFERENCES WITH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION.