European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

 

                      Application No. 32944/96

                      by Morag Ann POWELL

                      against the United Kingdom

 

 

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

 

           Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

           MM.  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                E. BUSUTTIL

                A. WEITZEL

                C.L. ROZAKIS

                L. LOUCAIDES

                B. CONFORTI

                N. BRATZA

                I. BÉKÉS

                G. RESS

                A. PERENIC

                C. BÎRSAN

                K. HERNDL

                M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs. M. HION

           Mr.  R. NICOLINI

 

           Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

 

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

 

     Having regard to the application introduced on 3 September 1996

by Morag Ann POWELL against the United Kingdom and registered on

11 September 1996 under file No. 32944/96;

 

     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's letter

dated 26 February 1997;

 

     Having deliberated;

 

     Decides as follows:

 

THE FACTS

 

     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1954 and resident in

Harrowgate, the United Kingdom. She is represented before the

Commission by Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln.

The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

 

A.   Particular facts of the case

 

     In late 1995 the applicant, a Corporal in the Royal Army Dental

Corps, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with

assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against

the Person Act 1861. A district court-martial was convened to try the

applicant. On 20 December 1995 the applicant was convicted and was

sentenced to 56 days imprisonment, to be dismissed from the army and

to be reduced to the ranks.

 

     The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the

Confirming Officer and, accordingly, promulgated on 27 March 1996. On

4 April 1996 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council against

conviction pointing to, inter alia, the alleged unreliable nature of

certain evidence and the alleged inadequate directions given by the

Judge Advocate. By letter dated 24 June 1996 the applicant's

representatives were informed of the decision, taken by the Army Board,

to reject the applicant's petition.

 

     On 13 June 1996 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the

Courts-Martial Appeal Court against conviction. On 29 July 1996 a

single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court refused leave to

appeal.

 

B.   Relevant domestic law and practice

 

     The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice"

contained in the judgment in the Findlay case (Eur. Court HR, Findlay

v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, to be published in

Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and in its report on the

Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm. Report 25.6.96, unpublished).

 

 

COMPLAINTS

 

     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

that she did not receive a fair and public hearing by an independent

and impartial tribunal established by law.

 

 

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

 

     The application was introduced on 3 September 1996 and was

registered on 11 September 1996.

 

     On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application and to request the parties' observations.

 

     In their letter received on 7 March 1997 the Government stated

that they have no observations on the admissibility of the application.

 

THE LAW

 

     The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that she was denied a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Government

have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's

complaints.

 

     The Commission considers that the application raises complex and

serious issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which require

determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the

applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other

ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.

 

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

 

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

     merits of the case.

 

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                J. LIDDY

     Secretary                                   President

to the First Chamber                        of the First Chamber