CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 février 1970

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  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 1930 and at present detained at Parkhurst Central Prison.   From his statements and documents submitted by him it appears that, on .. October 1968, the applicant was convicted by the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Kent for conspiracy to break into a house and for obtaining money by false pretences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.   It appears that the applicant lodged with the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence; he also applied for legal aid, for permission to be present, for bail and for leave to call evidence. His applications were rejected by the full Court on .. February 1969.   From his statements it appears that he mainly wishes to complain against his conviction and sentence. He alleges that the Court failed adequately to appreciate the evidence before it and that he was not given the opportunity of fully stating his case or cross-examining the witness for the prosecution.   The applicant further alleges that several witnesses, including a principal witness for the prosecution, did not appear in person. Four witnesses for the defence did not appear despite his repeated requests and the police withheld several other pieces of evidence. In one instance a witness was said by the police to have been ill which, according to the applicant was not true, and in another instance the police denied that a statement was made by a witness although, as the applicant maintains, he in fact made a statement.   With regard to the witnesses who did not appear, it seems that the applicant failed to give the period of notice prescribed by English law.   He also maintains the judge's summing-up was one-sided and designed to mislead the jury.   The applicant further submits that he met his lawyer only ten minutes before the trial, as the lawyer who was due to represent him was occupied with another trial. He also alleges that, contrary to English law, his trial took place before the Quarter Sessions for the County of Kent instead of Canterbury City Sessions. He states that his lawyer on a previous occasion was not a judge at Canterbury City Sessions and that it was for that reason that the case had been transferred to Kent.   It also appears that the applicant wishes to complain of ill-treatment in prison. He allegedly worked for the authorities and gave information about the situation in prison and his co-detainees. On one occasion when he gave certain information to the Governor of the prison, in order to avoid suspicion of informing (as he was told), he was given fourteen days punishment. He was forced to sit on a cold concrete floor and to shave without soap. He was also banned from the canteen and refused leave to smoke. During the winter he was forced to wear only a pair of thin overalls which remained unwashed for three months. On another occasion he was forced to take off his clothes in order to be searched for letters and documents.   It appears that the applicant had unsuccessfully lodged complaints with the Home Office and other authorities, but it is not clear on which particular points he raised his complaints.   The applicant alleges violation of Article 5, paragraph (2), and Article 6, paragraph (3) (b), (c) and (d), of the Convention.   THE LAW   Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaints concerning his conviction and sentence, an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and especially in the Articles invoked by the applicant;   Whereas, in respect of the judicial decisions complained of, the Commission has frequently stated that in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention its only task is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties in the Convention; whereas, in particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where the Commission considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms limitatively listed in the Convention;   Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its decisions Nos. 458/59 (X. v. Belgium - Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 233) and 1140/61 (X. v. Austria - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 8, p. 57); and whereas there is no appearance of a violation in the proceedings complained of;   Whereas, in regard to the applicant's complaint that certain witnesses for the defence were not called to give evidence, it appears that the applicant failed to give the period of notice required by English law; whereas, even assuming that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in this respect, the Commission had consistently held that the provision of Article 6, paragraph (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d), of the Convention does not give an accused person a general right to call witnesses on his behalf; whereas, in particular, a court is justified in refusing to summon witnesses whose statements could not be of any relevance in the case (see, for instance, Applications Nos. 617/59, Yearbook, Vol. III, pp. 390-392, 2384/64, Collection of Decisions, Vol. XXIII, p. 30):   Whereas the Commission is satisfied that in the present case there has been no violation of the applicant's right "to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him" as guaranteed by Article 6, paragraph (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d), of the Convention;   Whereas, the applicant also complains that the counsel who was originally to represent him was occupied with other proceedings and that he did not have sufficient time to consult the lawyer who finally represented him; whereas it first appears that neither the applicant nor his lawyer raised this point before either the trial court or the Court of Appeal; whereas, however, assuming that this does not pose a question of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission has considered the applicant's complaints under Article 6, paragraph (3) (b) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention, which provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right "to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence"; whereas, in addition, according to paragraph (3) (c) of the said Article (Art. 6-3-c), such person has the right "to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing";   Whereas, in order to determine the question whether the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence has been respected, account must be taken of the general situation of the defence;   Whereas the applicant was charged in July 1968 of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretences and had thus approximately three months to prepare his defence at the trial before the Quarter Sessions and a further period of four months until the time when his application for leave to appeal was heard;   Whereas it is possibly true that the applicant met and instructed the lawyer who finally represented him only for ten minutes on the actual day of his trial; whereas, however, the prejudice of his representation during the proceedings (see Application No. 2370/64 - Collection of Decisions, Vol. 22, p. 100); whereas, again, an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 6, paragraph (3) (b) and (c) (Art. 6-3-b, 6-3-c);   Whereas, finally, insofar as the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in prison, account must be taken of the apparent circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment;   Whereas the applicant himself states that he worked for the authorities and gave information about the situation in prison and his co-detainees and that he was subjected to the alleged ill-treatment "in order to avoid suspicion of informing"; whereas the applicant has not satisfied the Commission and the account which he gives of his situation in prison and, in particular, of his alleged ill-treatment is true;   Whereas, therefore, an examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and in particular in Article 3 (Art. 3);   Whereas it follows that all the applicant's complaints are manifestly ill-founded on the respective grounds stated above and his application must be rejected in accordance with Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;   Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE