Evans v. the United Kingdom



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 30239/96

by Shane EVANS

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 9 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

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 6 February 1996

by Shane Evans against the United Kingdom and registered on

16 February 1996 under file No. 30239/96;

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

of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's

indication that they have no observations on the admissibility of the

applicant's complaints;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1971 and resident in

Clwyd, Wales. He is represented before the Commission by

Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The facts as

submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A. Particular circumstances of the case.

In May 1995 the applicant, who was a Senior Aircraftman in the

Royal Air Force, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Air Force

Act 1955) with two charges of the civilian criminal offence of assault

contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was also charged with

drunkenness contrary to the Air Force Act 1955.

The Convening Officer, by order dated 25 May 1995, convened a

district court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. On

28 June 1995 the court-martial found the applicant guilty of one of the

assault charges and of drunkenness. He was sentenced to 112 days

detention and to be dismissed from the air force.

The Confirming Officer confirmed the applicant's conviction and

sentence.

On 4 August 1995 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council

against conviction and sentence. As regards his conviction he submitted

that the police had not released jurisdiction to the air force

authorities and that, accordingly, the court-martial did not have

jurisdiction in the matter. He also submitted that, in light of various

factors, the sentence was too severe. By letter dated 13 September 1995

the applicant's representative was informed of the decision, taken by

the Air Force Board, to reject this petition.

On 22 September 1995 the applicant applied to a single judge of

the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal to that court

against conviction raising the same jurisdiction matter as before the

Defence Council. On 21 December 1995 this application was rejected. The

single judge found that the applicant should have raised the

jurisdiction point before he pleaded to the charges during the court-

martial itself.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice.

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

contained in its report on the Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm.

Report 25.6.96, unpublished).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that

he was denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial

tribunal established by law.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 6 February 1996 and was

registered on 16 February 1996.

On 12 April 1996 the Commission decided to communicate and

adjourn the application.

On 2 July 1996 the Commission decided to request the Government's

observations. In their letter received on 7 November 1996 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 he 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.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber