CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 26 juin 1996

.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. 27245/95                     by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY                     against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 26 June 1996, the following members being present:             Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                G.B. REFFI                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                K. HERNDL             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 8 December 1994 by Tarlac Ignatius CONNOLLY against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 May 1995 under file No. 27245/95.        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, an Irish national, is a school teacher and resides in Armagh (Northern Ireland).   Before the Commission he is represented by McGrory & Company, solicitors practising in Belfast.        The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.        On 24 June 1990, at 2.50 pm, the applicant, while driving his car, was arrested by the police in connection with the detonation of a landmine which had occurred at about 1.55 pm the same day and had caused the death of four persons.        Criminal proceedings were instituted against him on an unspecified date.        On 5 June 1992 the applicant was convicted by the Crown Court of Northern Ireland on four murder charges and a number of associated charges relating to the above-mentioned killings and was sentenced to life imprisonment.   The Court based its conviction mainly on forensic evidence establishing a link between the bombing and the applicant. In particular, the trial judge considered as highly relevant the reports produced on behalf of the Crown by two scientists, Doctor I. and Doctor F.        On 18 June 1992 the applicant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal.   In his grounds of appeal, lodged on 9 September 1992, he contested the findings of the Crown Court that he had been involved in the bombing operation.   The applicant requested the Court of Appeal to restrict his criminal liability to the offence of assisting offenders under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.        On 15 December 1992 the Court of Appeal fixed the date for the hearing as 17 May 1993.        However, on 7 May 1993 the applicant's counsel applied for an adjournment of the hearing.   The request was based on the fact that, since the applicant was not satisfied with the evidence produced before the trial judge, he wanted to obtain a supplementary forensic report. On 18 June 1993 the adjournment was granted, and the hearing was fixed for 27 September 1993.        On 10 September 1993 the applicant's counsel applied again for an adjournment as his counsel was involved in another trial.   The adjournment was granted on 23 October 1993 and the hearing was then postponed until 6 December 1993.        The report of a forensic expert, Doctor N.S., engaged by the applicant, was ready on 4 October 1993.   The applicant considered that the forensic issues had not been properly investigated, and formulated new questions for the expert on 25 October 1993.        On 30 November 1993, the counsel for the applicant requested a new adjournment, as the additional questions had not yet been answered by the forensic scientist.   The Court of Appeal refused to grant a new adjournment on the basis that it had already granted numerous adjournments in order to facilitate the applicant's defence and that 18 months had passed between the conviction of the applicant and the appeal, a period which was long enough to allow the applicant to investigate the matters relating to the forensic evidence.        The new forensic report answering the applicant's questions was ready on 1 December 1993, but the applicant's counsel received it only on 6 December 1993.        On 3 December 1993 the applicant dismissed his counsel.   On 6 December 1993 he appeared in person before the Court of Appeal.   He informed the Court that he was not properly prepared, as he had ordered a new forensic report which was due to be ready in six weeks time.        Examining the applicant's new request, the Court noted that the decision of the applicant to dismiss his experienced counsel after repeated adjournments of the hearing appeared to have no justification, but was merely an attempt to delay and obstruct the hearing of the appeal.   The Court of Appeal also noted that the applicant had not produced to the Court any forensic report in support of his applications for adjournments, that the grounds of appeal lodged by the applicant three months after the conviction made no reference to forensic science points, and that no additional grounds containing such points were ever lodged.   The Court came to the conclusion that there were no additional issues relating to the forensic evidence which could have been raised on the appeal.        In examining the appeal, the Court considered the judgment of the trial judge as well as all possible points which in the view of the Court could have been advanced on behalf of the applicant on appeal.        The Court of Appeal noted that the applicant did not contest the facts as they had been established by the Crown Court, that the trial court had heard his father as a witness and that the applicant himself had given oral evidence.        The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had considered in detail all the arguments in defence advanced on behalf of the applicant and that his conviction on all counts was satisfactory. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (b) of the Convention that, because of the refusal of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the hearing on the appeal, he did not have adequate time or facilities to properly prepare for his defence.   THE LAW        The applicant complains that the Court of Appeal rejected his application for another adjournment of the hearing, although he needed time to obtain further comments concerning the forensic evidence.   He invokes Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b), which provides, so far as relevant, as follows :        "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following      minimum rights :        [...]        b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of      his defence;        [...]"        As the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 6 (Art. 6) are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under paragraph 1, the Commission will consider these complaints in the light of the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Eur. Court H.R., Melin v. France judgment of 22 June 1993, Series A no. 261-A, p. 11, para. 21, and Hadjianastassiou v. Greece judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, para. 31).        The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 3 b) (Art. 6-3-b) has been interpreted as implying that the substantive defence activity on behalf of the accused may comprise everything which is "necessary" to prepare for the main trial.   The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all arguments relevant to his defence before the trial court, and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (Can v. Austria, Comm. Report 12.7.84, par. 53, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 96, p.17).        In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant was heard by the Crown Court and that he called his father as a witness.        Furthermore, before the Court of Appeal the applicant requested and obtained two adjournments of the hearing, on 18 June 1993 and 23 October 1993.   A third request for adjournment was refused on 30 November 1993, on the ground that the applicant had had ample time for the preparation of his defence.   Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had neither lodged any grounds of appeal concerning the forensic science points, nor had he presented any of the forensic reports he had obtained.        The Commission observes that the applicant, who had had 18 months for the preparation of his defence, did not provide objective elements to justify his numerous requests for adjournment of the hearing before the Court of Appeal.   Rather, the applicant appeared to be dissatisfied with the conclusions reached by the expert acting on his behalf.        In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to adjourn the hearing of 6 December 1993 did not infringe the applicant's rights of defence, nor did it deprive him of a fair trial.        It follows that the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill- founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber        President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                    (C.L. ROZAKIS)