[align=left]
R.F. AND A.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 3034/67 [1967] ECHR 33 (19 December 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicants are citizens of the United Kingdom. The male Applicantwas born in 1934 and is at present detained in Wormwood Scrubbs prisonin London. The female Applicant is detained at Askham Grange prison inYorkshire.On 27 July 1961, the Applicants and a third person were convicted atBirmingham Assizes of the murder of a child, having set fire to a housein which he was burned to death, knowing it to be occupied. The essenceof the case against the male Applicant was that he had taken part inthe conspiracy to set fire to the house and did not at any time clearlywithdraw from the conspiracy although it was not established that hetook any active part in starting the fire.The Applicants appealed on the ground that they had been convicted, inparticular, on the evidence of 2 witnesses who had committed perjury.However, the Court of Appeal, although it heard further evidence fromthe witnesses in question and came to the opinion that their evidenceat the trial could not be relied upon, decided that the conviction ofthe Applicants was justified by the remaining evidence. Accordingly,it dismissed the appeal on 18 April 1962.The Applicants have requested the Home Secretary to refer their caseto the Court of Appeal for reconsideration under the provisions ofSection 19 of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, but this wasrefused on 2 February 1967.The Applicants' case for a retrial before the United Kingdom courts,as well as their Application before the Commission, rests onallegations that a considerable amount of evidence at the trial and,in particular, the police evidence relating to admissions allegedlycontained in statements made by the Applicants, was false.The Applicants claim that in these circumstances their trial anddetention constitute a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.They also complain of the refusal to grant them a retrial.The male Applicant further complained in a letter of 27 January 1967that he had been told by the prison authorities that he must obtainpermission by petition to the Home Secretary, in order to send hisapplication form to the Commission. He stated that this would probablyhinder his communicating with the Commission within the meaning ofArticle 25, paragraph (1), of the Convention, or, at the least, causeconsiderable delay. However, it appears from his letter of 2 Februarythat he had sent the application form to the female Applicant for hersignature although he states that he was still prevented from sendingit to the Commission.By a letter received on 13 February 1967, the male Applicant succeededin sending his application form to the Commission through a thirdparty, stating that he regretted that he was obliged to do this as hehad not been allowed to send it through the proper channels. He alsosaid it was in no way his wish to infringe the prison rules.In a further letter of 11 April 1967, the male Applicant complainedthat the Home Secretary had denied him facilities to obtain a reviewof his own conviction and that of his wife. However, on 3 May, withthe permission of the Home Secretary, he was permitted to apply on hisown behalf for habeas corpus by an informal letter to the Master of theCrown Office. He alleged that he had been convicted on perjuredevidence and so was not properly detained, and also that the HomeSecretary refused to produce him personally before the Court: heinvoked Articles 5, paragraph (4) and 6, paragraph (1), of theConvention.After proceedings at which the Applicant did not appear and was notrepresented, a Divisional Court of the High Court in London decidedthat as the Applicant was in execution from a court of competentjurisdiction there were no grounds disclosed for moving for a writ ofhabeas corpus and that the Applicant should be left, if so advised, tomake a formal application in accordance with the rules.The Applicant accordingly applied to the local Legal Aid Committee forfree legal assistance which was refused because the Applicant had notshown reasonable grounds for taking proceedings, and the Applicant wasso informed by a letter from the Secretary dated 4 July 1967. TheApplicant does not expressly state whether he is appealing against thisdecision but writes, "As I cannot argue my grounds whether to the lawsociety or the court without legal assistance which I cannot afford,[this refusal] evidences that I am in fact wholly shut out - which Ihave no doubt the Commission will regard as conclusive".The male Applicant also complained that he had not been permitted tosend letters to the Attorney General to request the reopening understatutory powers of an inquest on a person who was a witness at histrial and also letters to other persons, ie the coroner and witnessesat the inquest informing them of this request.The witness in question was examined by the Court of Appeal whichitself went into the question which the Applicant is raising, ieperjury or withdrawal of evidence by this witness. The Court came tothe opinion that the witness was unworthy of belief, both as regardsthe evidence he gave at the trial and the changed evidence given in theCourt of Appeal but maintained the conviction of Fletcher and his wifeas fully justified by other evidence which was before the jury.After the partial decision of 29 May 1967, and the subsequentadjournment of this Application on 31 May 1967, the Applicant, Mr RoyFletcher, made a further complaint.Prior to his trial on 10 July 1961, the Applicant was served with anindictment containing 2 charges, one for murder and a second for arson.At his trial he was only required to plead to the first charge and wasconvicted of murder.[/align]