Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1931 and at
present resident at M..

He first wrote to the Commission on 22nd January 1968, complaining that
he had been convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for
an offence of housebreaking which he had not committed.

He alleged that the trial judge was biased against him and misdirected
the jury by distorting the evidence;  that his conviction was based
only on a vague and insufficient identification by a woman who had been
his mistress;  and that the police had failed to investigate his
alleged alibi. He further complained that the prison authorities had
obstructed his correspondence with his solicitor, and that as a result
new evidence was not put before the Court of Appeal and his application
for leave to appeal rejected. He alleged violations of Article 6, (1),
(2) and (3) (b), (c) and (d), and of Article 8, (1) and (2) of the

His application No. 3542/68 was registered on 8 March 1968. On 31
October 1968, he was sent a letter from the Secretariat asking him to
confirm that he intended to maintain his application and to submit any
further information which he might wish to put before the Commission.
No reply was received to this letter, nor to a similar letter sent by
recorded delivery on 18 November 1968. The applicant had stated, in the
last letter received from him, dated 6 April 1968, that he would send
copies of the transcript of the judge's summing-up at the trial, the
notice of appeal with his grounds of appeal and the judgment of the
Court of Appeal. On 3 February 1969 nothing further having been heard
from the applicant, the Commission decided to strike the application
off the list.

A letter dated 7 February 1969 informing the applicant of the
Commission's decision, was returned by the prison authorities in London
with the remark that his address was not known. However, on 17 March
1969, the applicant wrote from H.M. Prison, Oxford, sending a copy of
his petition to the Home Secretary. It appears that he had meanwhile
asked a probation officer, Mr. D., to obtain various documents in
support of his application and to forward them to the Commission. In
a letter dated 3 January 1969, the applicant had sent some of the
documents to Mr. D., but there was a delay in obtaining other documents
and the letter from Mr. D. enclosing all the documents was sent only
on 11 April 1969.

The applicant was subsequently sent another application form, and his
new application was registered on 2 June 1969. He was told that it
would be necessary for the Commission to decide the date upon which his
application would be considered as having been introduced. The
application is substantially the same as the previous application, but
is supported by considerable documentation.

From the documents submitted, it appears that the applicant was
convicted and sentenced on .. March 1966;  his applications for leave
to appeal and to call further witnesses were refused by the full court
of the Court of Criminal Appeal on .. July 1966. Subsequently, he
attempted to appeal to the House of Lords, representations were made
on his behalf to the Home Secretary, and he made numerous petitions
asking for an enquiry into his conviction.


Whereas the Commission referred to its decision of 3 February 1969, by
which it decided to strike application No. 3452/68 off its list of
cases; whereas the Commission then considered the question whether or
not the applicant was entitled to have this application restored to the
Commission's list and to have it examined by the Commission as to the
question of its admissibility;

Whereas the Commission has previously held that an applicant may have
his application restored to the Commission's list of cases where the
circumstances of the case as a whole justify such restoration (cf.
application No. 2840/66);

Whereas, in the present case, the applicant had apparently failed to
send to the Commission certain documents in support of his application;

Whereas, however, it subsequently appeared that the applicant had in
fact sent these documents, while in prison, to a person acting on his
behalf in order that they should be forwarded to the Commission;
whereas moreover the delay in transmitting the documents does not
appear to be attributable to any fault of the applicant; whereas
therefore the Commission finds that, in the circumstances, there is a
justification for restoring application No. 3542/68 to its list;

Whereas the Commission having regard to the complaints in application
No. 4099/69, decided to join the two application for the purpose of
considering the question of their admissibility;

Whereas, in these circumstances, 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 refusing the applicant's application for leave to
appeal, which was the final decision regarding the subject of the
applicant's complaints, was given on .. July 1966; whereas application
No. 3542/68 was not submitted to the Commission until 22 January 1968,
and application No. 4099/69 not until 17 March 1969, that is, in both
cases, 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 applications have been lodged out of time
(Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3), of the Convention);