AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 32944/96
                      by Morag Ann POWELL
                      against the United Kingdom

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:

           Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
           MM.  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
                E. BUSUTTIL
                A. WEITZEL
                C.L. ROZAKIS
                L. LOUCAIDES
                B. CONFORTI
                N. BRATZA
                I. BÉKÉS
                G. RESS
                A. PERENIC
                C. BÎRSAN
                K. HERNDL
                M. VILA AMIGÓ
           Mrs. M. HION
           Mr.  R. NICOLINI

           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 3 September 1996
by Morag Ann POWELL against the United Kingdom and registered on
11 September 1996 under file No. 32944/96;

     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission and the respondent Government's letter
dated 26 February 1997;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a British citizen born in 1954 and resident in
Harrowgate, the United Kingdom. She is represented before the
Commission by Mr. Gilbert Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln.
The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows.

A.   Particular facts of the case

     In late 1995 the applicant, a Corporal in the Royal Army Dental
Corps, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with
assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against
the Person Act 1861. A district court-martial was convened to try the
applicant. On 20 December 1995 the applicant was convicted and was
sentenced to 56 days imprisonment, to be dismissed from the army and
to be reduced to the ranks.

     The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the
Confirming Officer and, accordingly, promulgated on 27 March 1996. On
4 April 1996 the applicant petitioned the Defence Council against
conviction pointing to, inter alia, the alleged unreliable nature of
certain evidence and the alleged inadequate directions given by the
Judge Advocate. By letter dated 24 June 1996 the applicant's
representatives were informed of the decision, taken by the Army Board,
to reject the applicant's petition.

     On 13 June 1996 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the
Courts-Martial Appeal Court against conviction. On 29 July 1996 a
single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court refused leave to
appeal.

B.   Relevant domestic law and practice

     The Commission refers to the "Relevant domestic law and practice"
contained in the judgment in the Findlay case (Eur. Court HR, Findlay
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, to be published in
Reports of Judgments and Decisions for 1997) and in its report on the
Coyne application (No. 25942/94, Comm. Report 25.6.96, unpublished).

COMPLAINTS

     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention
that she did not receive a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 3 September 1996 and was
registered on 11 September 1996.

     On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application and to request the parties' observations.

     In their letter received on 7 March 1997 the Government stated
that they have no observations on the admissibility of the application.

THE LAW

     The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that she was denied a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Government
have no observations on the admissibility of the applicant's
complaints.

     The Commission considers that the application raises complex and
serious issues under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention which require
determination on the merits. It follows that these complaints of the
applicant cannot be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other
ground for declaring them inadmissible has been established.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
     merits of the case.

  M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                J. LIDDY
     Secretary                                   President
to the First Chamber                        of the First Chamber