CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 mars 1989

.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. 13499/88 by Maurice John KIRK against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 March 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   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 2 February 1987 by Maurice John KIRK against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 January 1988 under file No. 13499/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1945 and resident in Guernsey.           The applicant attempted to raise 20 clameurs de haro (a civil remedy of some antiquity) from 1983 onwards, in relation to an alleged trespass on his property and removal of equipment and to other unspecified matters.   In connection with eight of these clameurs, the applicant paid to the Court a registration fee of £7.50.   The courts refused to register the remaining 12.   The applicant took proceedings to recover certain of the court fees.   In one of these, the applicant was suing the Deputy Bailiff for return of £7.50.   His application was dismissed in the Petty Debts Court by Magistrate Plummer.   He appealed and during the hearing of this appeal in court on 23 January 1986, the applicant considered that the Procureur, who had acted in previous proceedings was perverting the course of justice and attempted to arrest him.   The applicant alleges that he was assaulted and injured by a police officer.   An article about the incident was published on 24 January 1986 in the Guernsey Evening Press stating that the applicant had used abusive words.   The applicant was subsequently charged with disorderly conduct.   He applied to the Royal Court for witness summonses and access to certain materials for use at the trial, but these applications were dismissed on 25 March 1986 by a court presided over by Magistrate Plummer.             He was found guilty in the Magistrate's Court by Magistrate Plummer on 26 March 1986 and sentenced to 6 weeks imprisonment.   On 24 March his counsel had brought to Magistrate Plummer's attention the fact that he had earlier sat in the Petty Debts Court at first instance in relation to the proceedings which on appeal led to the incident charged.   The Magistrate dismissed the objection since he had not been present at the appeal itself, and he also dismissed an objection from the applicant relating to the prejudicial publicity.           The applicant appealed to the Royal Court.           The Full Court dismissed his appeal on 15 July 1986 and increased his sentence to 8 weeks, with a fine of £100.   His application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed on 26 January 1987.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court and on appeal.   He complains that the judges, in particular Magistrate Plummer were not impartial, that a magistrate fell asleep during the evidence, that the press were told after the incident that no charges were pending and that he was unable to examine or cross-examine the witnesses that he wished.   He also complains that he was refused access to a tape of the court hearing and other material.           He invokes Articles 5 and 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) of the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant complains of the proceedings in which he was convicted of disorderly conduct and invokes Articles 5 and 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) (Art. 5, 6-1-2-3-a-b-d) of the Convention.           Insofar as the applicant complains of the lack of impartiality, the Commission recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has stated that the guarantee of impartiality required by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention implies a double guarantee: first the subjective requirement that the judge shall be unbiased, and secondly, an objective requirement that the situation must be such as to exclude any legitimate doubts about his impartiality (Eur.   Court H.R., Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A No. 53, p. 14, para. 30).           As regards the subjective requirement, the Commission finds that no evidence has been adduced which could raise any doubts on this point.   In this context the Commission also recalls that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until the contrary is established (Eur.   Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A No. 43, p. 25, para. 58).           As regards the objective element, while it appears that Magistrate Plummer, who convicted the applicant of disorderly conduct had been concerned, at first instance in the proceedings during which, on appeal, the incident charged as disorderly conduct occurred, the Commission finds that this factual nexus is not of such nature or degree as to cast any doubt on the Magistrate's impartiality.   The Commission also finds that the fact that the same magistrate dealt with the pre-trial application by the applicant for witness summonses does not disclose any lack of impartiality on the part of that magistrate in his capacity as trial judge.   The Commission notes in this respect that in many of the Contracting States a trial judge may deal with procedural questions prior to the trial and decide which witnesses should or should not be called.   The mere fact of having prior knowledge of a case cannot be considered as making the judge prejudiced.           The Commission has examined the applicant's remaining complaints as they have been submitted by him.   It finds that these complaints have not been substantiated and that the facts do not disclose a breach of any of the provisions invoked by the applicant.           It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.         Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission                    (H.C. KRÜGER)                        (C.A. NØRGAARD)