[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]

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.