Application No. 19581/92
by the H. family
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
2 April 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M. NOWICKI
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 23 December 1991
by the H. family against the United Kingdom and registered on
4 March 1992 under file No. 19581/92;
Having regard to:
- the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
19 November 1992 and the letter in reply submitted by the
applicants on 26 January 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first and second applicants, who are married, were born in
1960 and 1955 respectively, and are resident in South Ronaldsay,
Orkney. They have two children, P. (the third applicant) born on
2 June 1981 and T. (the fourth applicant), born on 8 September 1982.
They are all British citizens.
The applicants are represented by Mr. John Moir, a solicitor
practising in Orkney.
The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as
follows.
The applicants went to live in Orkney in 1989. The second
applicant became seriously ill in 1990 and has been diagnosed as
suffering from a brain tumour, as a result of which he has developed
epilepsy.
This is the third of four cases introduced in relation to the
removal of nine children taken into care on 26 February 1991.
Reference is made to the first case - B., Application No. 19579/92 -
where the matters mentioned are identical.
Background to the case
See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 2-3.
The execution of the Place of Safety Orders
At 7 a.m. on 27 February 1991 Mr. and Mrs. H. were wakened by
hammering on the door of their house. Two police officers and two
social workers were at the door. One of the social workers told
Mrs. H. that they had Place of Safety Orders for the children and were
going to take them into care. Mrs. H. became hysterical. Mr. H.
became very angry and said that the children were not going. P. and
T. locked themselves in the bathroom. The police officer told Mrs. H.
that there was reason to believe that the children were being sexually
abused. Mrs. H. persuaded the children to open the bathroom door. She
and a police officer got the children dressed. Mrs. H. and the
children were all weeping. Mrs. H. packed some clothes for the
children. The children were allowed by the police officer to take some
cuddly toys, but were advised to pack them with the clothes, apparently
so that the social workers would not see them. Mrs. H. was allowed to
give the children breakfast. The children were taken away at about
8.20 a.m.
The social workers told Mrs. H. that she should contact the
Social Work Department in order to obtain further information. No
attempt was made to explain the nature and implications of the Place
of Safety Order, or the purpose, timescale or procedure involved in the
children's removal or the arrangements thereafter.
The proceedings before the Children's Hearings and the Sheriff
See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 3-7. The facts insofar as
they differ are as follows:
At the Children's Hearing on 5 March 1991 involving the
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. H. were accompanied by Mr. Targowski. The
Chairman of the Children's Hearing read out the grounds of referral.
Mr. and Mrs. H. were asked whether they accepted the grounds of
referral. They stated that they did not. Mr. Targowski asked why,
unlike the other parents, Mr. and Mrs. H. had not been questioned by
the police. Mr. Sloan, the Acting Reporter, replied that there was
perhaps sufficient evidence against the H. family to justify dispensing
with questioning. There was no further discussion of the allegations
or of any evidence substantiating them. No report of any description
was produced or referred to.
At the Children's Hearings on 25 March 1991 concerned with the
H. children, Mr. and Mrs. H. were accompanied by their solicitor and
by a Senior Counsel, Mr. Nigel Morrison, Q.C. Mr. Morrison holds the
appointment of First Counsel to the Lord President of the Court of
Session (the most senior Scottish Judge) and sits part time as
a Sheriff and as a chairman of administrative tribunals. He is
a highly respected member of the Scottish Bar. At the hearing, he was
threatened with ejection for being "disruptive" in terms of Rule 11(3)
of the 1986 Rules when he attempted to make submissions to the effect
that there was no medical evidence of abuse and therefore no sufficient
grounds for holding the children in retention.
Relevant domestic law and practice
See B., Application No. 19579/92, p. 7.
COMPLAINTS
See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 7-9.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 23 December 1991 and registered
on 4 March 1992.
On 22 May 1992, the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government and to ask for written
observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
The Government's observations were submitted on 19 November 1992
after two extensions in the time-limit.
On 11 December 1992, the Commission decided to grant legal aid
to the applicants.
By letter dated 26 January 1993, the applicants informed the
Commission's Secretariat that following counsel's advice they intended
to commence proceedings in the Scottish courts and therefore withdrew
the present application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
In light of the applicants' expressed intention to withdraw, the
Commission finds that they no longer intend to pursue their
application. The Commission further considers that respect for Human
Rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the
examination of the application.
It follows that the application may be struck off the list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy