CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 février 1992

.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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application No. 16757/90 by B.S. against the United Kingdom     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 February 1992, the following members being present:   MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President S. TRECHSEL F. ERMACORA G. SPERDUTI E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON A. WEITZEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS H. DANELIUS Mrs.G. H. THUNE SirBasil HALL MM.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs.J. LIDDY MM.L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 8 January 1990 by B.S.against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 June 1990 under file No. 16757/90;         Having regard to:   the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   -   the Commission's decision of 13 July 1990 to bring       the application to the notice of the respondent Government       and invite them to submit written observations on its       admissibility and merits ;         -   the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       24 April 1991;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:                       THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1949, currently serving a 10 year prison sentence in Long Lartin Prison, Worcestershire.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr. G. Platt of Overbury, Steward and Eaton, solicitors of Norwich.           The facts of the application as agreed by the parties may be summarised as follows.           On 8 June 1988 the applicant stood trial at Norwich Crown Court on seven counts of rape, indecent assault, unlawful sexual intercourse, kidnapping and threats to kill.   He was represented by solicitor and counsel.   During the course of the trial the applicant was placed in the dock at the front of which was a glass screen.   The applicant was unable to hear the proceedings.   He made numerous complaints to his solicitor, who passed them on to counsel, and to counsel directly during the course of trial, but they made no application to the judge to have the applicant moved to a place where he could hear.   He also complained to a dock officer that he could not hear.           On 15 June 1988, the applicant was convicted on four of the counts and was sentenced to a total of 10 years in prison.           The applicant, unrepresented, applied for leave to appeal against conviction on the grounds, inter alia, that he could not hear the proceedings.   On 13 September 1988 a single judge refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction.   The applicant's complaint that he could not hear was not mentioned in the refusal of leave.           The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the same grounds as before, including a letter from Prison Officer Smith, which stated:                   "I was in the dock with the [applicant] and on         several occasions during the day, he asked me what was         happening as he could not hear the witnesses' statements.         On at least 3 occasions I called his solicitor and he was         told the problem.   On one of these occasions he told the         [applicant] not to worry as his barrister was doing a good         job.   I have to say that I could not hear what the witnesses         were saying."   On 6 October 1989 the application was refused by the full court.           In his judgment, Lord Justice Walker said as regards the applicant's complaint that he did not receive a fair trial on being unable to hear the proceedings:           "We have seen a letter from a prison officer         relating to this matter.   There would appear to be         something in the complaint of the applicant,         namely, that he could not hear properly at all         times what was going on.   There is no doubt in         our minds, however, that his solicitor and his         counsel had not the slightest difficulty in         following the proceedings and in representing him         in a way which could not possibly be complained         about."         On 6 November 1989 the applicant wrote to Norwich Crown Court complaining about the acoustics.   He was informed that as a result of a recent complaint the acoustics of the court were under review.           On 10 November 1989, the applicant was informed by letter from the Registrar of Criminal Appeals that he could not appeal to the House of Lords, since he had not had an appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal.           A similar complaint concerning acoustics in the courtroom in which the applicant had been tried was made in another case over a year later.   As a result, a report was commissioned concerning the acoustics.   This report, which was completed in 1990, concluded that, although the glass screen had the effect of reducing the sound level in the dock by 2dBA, a person speaking from the Bench was nonetheless intelligible.   It recommended that a sound reflector be installed above the dock to counteract the effect of the glass screen.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   He alleges that he has been denied a fair trial in that he could not hear or follow the proceedings which resulted in his conviction.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 8 January 1990 and registered on 20 June 1990.           On 13 July 1990 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government and to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.           The Government's observations were submitted on 24 April 1991 after one extension in the time-limit. The applicant did not submit any observations in reply.           On 11 July 1991 the Commission decided to grant legal aid to the applicant.     THE LAW   The applicant complains that he did not receive a fair trial since he was unable to hear the witnesses giving evidence against him as a result of a glass screen in front of the dock.   He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides in its first sentence:   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."   The Government submit that, taking the proceedings as a whole, having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant's legal representatives were able to follow the proceedings, the applicant had a fair hearing.   The inability of the applicant to follow the proceedings was not brought to the attention of the trial court and the Government cannot be held responsible for the failure of his legal representatives to raise the matter.   Having examined the submissions of the parties, the Commission considers that the application raises serious issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits.   The application must therefore be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established.       For these reasons, the Commission unanimously     DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without prejudging the merits of the case.       Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission            (H. C. KRUGER)        (C. A. NORGAARD)