AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 13681/88
by Eunice HOCKING
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 16 May 1990, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
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 15 March 1988
by Eunice HOCKING against the United Kingdom and registered on
21 March 1988 under file No. 13681/88;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1943 and resident
in Manchester. She is represented by Lucas Rogerson, solicitors
practising in Ashton-under-Lyne.
The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as
follows.
In February 1987, the applicant received a visit from
Thameside Social Services Department (hereafter the "social services")
of Thameside Metropolitan Borough (hereafter the "local authority")
who informed her that they had received a report from her daughter's
headmaster that her daughter had been sexually abused. The
applicant's daughter, then aged 10, attended a special school, as she
had learning difficulties. She lived at home with the applicant and
her elder brother aged 17. The applicant informed the social services
that her son had had a toy fight with his sister and that she had
bruised her legs. Not satisfied with this explanation, the social
services arranged for the daughter to be examined by a doctor in the
presence of her mother and a representative of the social services.
The doctor, after internal examination, found no indication of sexual
abuse. The social services, apparently still not satisfied, arranged
for a further examination in a hospital, where it was again found that
there was no indication of abuse.
The applicant was very disturbed by the invasion into her
private life as a result of the questioning put to her and her son in
respect of the allegation. This apparently was the second time on
which the headmaster had made an unfounded allegation in respect of
her daughter. While the applicant accepted that the social services
had a duty to investigate the matter, she was concerned that a record
of the allegation had been made by the local authority. Her
solicitors requested on her behalf that records of the unfounded
allegation be destroyed. By letter dated 31 March 1987 the Director
of the Social Services refused to comply with this request, explaining
that it was necessary to keep records of the local authority's actions
taken in respect of its statutory obligations and that though
allegations may be found to be unsubstantiated, further evidence may
come forward later which changes this situation (though he did not
suggest this was the case in respect of the applicant). He also
explained that records were kept for five years before being
destroyed. The applicant's solicitors by letter dated 2 June 1987
requested that the local authority inform them of the statutory or
legal authority for this policy. By letter dated 18 June 1987, the
local authority replied that legislation only specified the length of
time for keeping records concerning adoption or boarding out, but that
it was the practice of the Social Services in this instance to keep
records for five years.
The applicant applied for legal aid to bring judicial review
proceedings in respect of this matter. Her application was refused by
the general committee of the Law Society on 6 October 1987 on the
ground that it appeared unreasonable that she receive legal aid in the
particular circumstances of the case. They stated that (1) the
decision of the local authority was reasonable and that the Divisional
Court would not review it and (2) alternatively, even if judicial
review did lie, the matters in question did not justify proceedings at
the public expense. The applicant's appeal to the area committee was
refused on 19 November 1987.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the local authority's files
contain information relating to the applicant and her family. She
alleges that the storing of such information and its release to other
agencies amount to an interference with her right to respect for her
private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. Since the local
authority admit that there is no legislation pertaining to the keeping
of records in respect of allegations of sexual abuse, the applicant
submits that they are not acting "in accordance with the law" as
required by Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 15 March 1988 and registered
on 21 March 1988.
The Commission decided on 7 October 1988 to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them to
submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the
applicant's complaints.
The Government submitted observations on 21 April 1989
following two extentions in the time-limit. The applicant has failed
to submit any observations in reply. On 28 February 1990, the
applicant's solicitors were informed by registered letter that, in the
absence of any explanation as to their failure to reply to letters
from the Secretariat, the Commission might strike the case from its
list. No reply was received.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to respond
to letters from the Secretariat or to provide observations in reply to
the Government. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the
applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the
Commission within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the
Convention.
It further considers that the respect for Human Rights as
defined in the Convention does not require that the Commission
continues its examination.
It follows that the application shall be struck off the list
of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF
THE LIST OF CASES
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy