FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5738/06
by Ingrida GRABYTE
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September as a Chamber composed of
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and MrsF.Araci, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 February 2001,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the letters submitted by the applicants’ representatives,
Having regard to the notification to the Lithuanian Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Ingrida Grabyte, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1977 and resident, at the time of introduction of the application, in Kaunas, Lithuania. She is represented before the Court by Ms J. Sawyer, a barrister employed by Liberty, London.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the daughter of Robertus Grabys, a Lithuanian national who entered the United Kingdom on 4 June 1998. On 8 June 1998, he made an application for asylum on ground of fear of persecution. His application was refused by the Secretary of State and his appeal rejected by the Adjudicator on 6 April 1999. Leave to appeal was refused on 7 May 1999.
On 14 January 2000, the police detained Robertus Grabys at Southall Police Station, after his arrest for theft and his immigration status having come to light. At 21.08, the same day, PC Page noticed that Robertus Grabys had removed his shoelaces, hidden them in his pocket, and lied about where they were.
At 22.52, the Forensic Medical Examiner (FME) attended and noted that there were no medical problems and that Robertus Grabys denied being suicidal. He instructed close observation nonetheless in case of attempts at self-harm. Robertus Grabys was kept under observation by the police.
On 15 January 2000, he was seen by the FME who noted that he complained of feeling unwell, that he was to see his own doctor in due course and that no medication was necessary. He was deemed fit for interview by immigration officers. The police continued to check him every half hour.
On 16 January 2000, at 10.00, Robertus Grabys asked why he was in detention. A police officer tried to explain. At 11.00 the police reverted to checking on him every hour.
On 17 January 2000, at 10.40, the FME visited him again, noting inter alia that he suffered from depression. He was kept under observation in case of self-harm. At 21.40 he was transferred to Harmondsworth. The Prisoner Escort Form included the observation that he had removed his shoelaces and the risk of suicide/self-harm box was ticked. The three FME notes were attached.
On 18 January 2000, he was seen by Dr Chana who noted that there was a history of depressive illness but no history of deliberate self-harm and that his behaviour did not give rise to a concern that he was at exceptional risk of self-harm.
On 19 January 2000, the applicant was seen by Dr Raj. He was prescribed 20mg of Seroxat per day, his previous medication.
On 22 January 2000, Robertus Grabys was taken to Heathrow for a flight back to Lithuania but due to a ticketing problem was returned to Harmondsworth. His flight was re-booked.
On 23 January 2000, an immigration officer informed him of his flight the next day.
On 24 January, at about 8.25-8.30, a detainee came to find some officers asking for help as someone had been in the shower cubicle for over an hour and he could not open the door. The officers forced open the shower door and found Robertus Grabys hanging from a tied-up sheet. Various officers and paramedics tried to resuscitate him without success. He was pronounced dead at hospital at 9.44.
The Home Office commissioned an internal report into the death. This was carried out by John Wilson of the Prison Governor Service. The terms of his investigation were to establish, inter alia, the facts pertaining to the cause of death, the degree to which local instructions were complied with, the adequacy of local instructions, the information held, and extent of information sharing, by different parties (police, immigration service, etc) and whether any disciplinary investigation should be undertaken. The applicant and her family were not involved in this investigation and were initially unaware of its existence. A report was concluded, after interviews with six detainees and eighteen personnel at Harmondsworth, and submitted to the Immigration Service Detention Service on 23 February 2000.
From 29-30 August 2000 an inquest was conducted. The applicant was represented by counsel, as were the Home Office and the private company that ran the detention centre, Burns International. The latter had had sight of the Wilson report, as had the Coroner. The jury returned an open verdict.
On 17 June 2002, after the applicant had threatened the Home Office with legal proceedings, the Wilson Report was disclosed to her.
The report was highly critical of the way in which Burns International had run Harmondsworth. It made 20 findings and 10 recommendations. It found that the clear evidence from the police station that the deceased had a history of depression and had been at risk of self-harm such as to justify particular observation had not been given sufficient weight during his reception at Harmondsworth. The overall conclusion was that the death was "...a culmination of failures in the systems and procedures of both Burns International and the Immigration Service".
On 23 January 2003 the applicant, as a dependant, and the deceased’s estate lodged civil proceedings for damages against the Home Office.
On 8 April 2005, the civil action was settled on agreement to pay damages of GBP 12,500 plus costs, without any admission of liability.
The applicant’s solicitor repeatedly requested that the Home Office hold a public inquiry.
On 21 November 2005, the Home Office finally refused to do so.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State, in the form of Burns International (to whom the Home Office had contracted responsibility for the care of her father) failed to take sufficient steps to protect his life. She also complained under Article 2 that there had not been an independent, public investigation which had involved the applicant and her family. Further, the Wilson report had not been disclosed to her at the inquest.
The applicant complained under Article 13 that she had been denied an effective remedy for the violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2.
PROCEDURE
On 11 September 2006, the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. On 12 February 2007, before the expiry of the extension in the time-limit granted by the President of the Chamber, the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. By letter dated 20 February 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representatives, who were requested to submit any observations in reply by 3 April 2007.
On three occasions, the President of the Chamber granted the applicant’s representatives request for an extension in the time-limit to allow them to locate, and obtain instructions from, the applicant in Lithuania. By letter dated 18 May 2007, the applicant’s representatives informed the Registry that they had been unable to find the applicant or obtain her instructions and accordingly had no option but to discontinue the application.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicant has lost contact with her representatives and has not provided them with any instructions for responding to the Government’s observations.
The Court considers that in the circumstances the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AraciJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy