THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37517/97
by Jane LEGGETT
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) sitting on 31 August 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrP. Kūris,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrsH.S. Greve,
MrK. Traja, Judges,
withMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 4 March 1997 by Jane Leggett against the United Kingdom and registered on 27 August 1997 under file no. 37517/97;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the applicant representatives’ letter of 29 June 1999, countersigned by the Agent of the United Kingdom, stating that the parties have reached an agreement and asking for the striking of the application out of the list of cases;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a British national, was born in 1966 and lives in Reading.
She is represented before the Court by Ms Carolyn Fyall, a solicitor practising in Oxford.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In July 1967, following the admission of her mother to hospital, the applicant was taken into care by Cambridgeshire County Council Social Services Department ("the Council"). In February 1970 the Council assumed parental rights over the applicant. For most of the time between July 1967 and March 1981, the applicant was “boarded out” with foster parents pursuant to the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955. In August 1984 she was discharged from care and in July 1985 she was transferred to a hostel for the homeless.
In or around April or May 1994 the applicant, with the assistance of her social worker, requested access to her social work files for the period between July 1967 and August 1984. The Council refused. Her solicitors requested reasons for the refusal by letter dated 4 November 1994. The Council replied by letter dated 19 January 1995 pointing out that access to the applicant's file was governed by Circular LAC(83)14 as well as by the Access to Personal Records Act 1987, both of which came into effect in April 1989 - "the Council was not therefore required to have a policy of disclosure of files before this time." The Council further stated that it understood that the applicant sought the records to bring legal proceedings. Her solicitors refuted this suggestion by letter dated 24 January 1994 pointing out that she wanted the records "to enable her to come to terms with her mental health problems and to better help her towards her future."
The matter was passed to the Council's insurers' solicitors. Further to the applicant's request to expedite the matter on the basis that the lack of records was having a direct impact on necessary therapeutic treatment for her mental health problems, the Council's insurers' solicitors stated, in their letter dated 3 November 1995, that the information requested was not covered by the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 and it could not therefore be disclosed. However, it was recognised that certain disclosures would be of assistance to the applicant and, consequently, certain "biological details" were released by letter dated 6 November 1995, which included dates and names of foster placements, dates of care orders and schools and colleges attended.
By letter dated 17 November 1995 the insurers' solicitors confirmed that all the applicant's medical reports had been disclosed apart from one report, the author of which was in Australia (and who has now given his consent to disclosure to the applicant's medical practitioner should the applicant agree).
On 28 February 1996 the applicant's solicitors requested further specific information relating to her birth mother, the reason she was placed in care and details of any investigation into the allegations of rape which had been made by the applicant. The reply from the Council provided a "limited" response to those requests.
The applicant's solicitors then wrote on 3 June 1996 requesting voluntary disclosure of "the entirety of the documentation collected in relation to her period of time in the care of [the Council]". The response, a letter dated 7 June 1996, noted that the Council's documents attracted public interest immunity which the Council had a duty to assert and could not waive. If the documents had to be disclosed, it would be done under a Court order.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant considered that the refusal of access to all records compiled during the period while she was under the care of the Council constituted a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 4 March 1997 and registered on 27 August 1997.
On 10 September 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
By a letter dated 4 November 1998, the Government informed the Court that the local authority had now changed its policy about access to pre-1989 social service files. Payment of an ex gratia sum and the applicant’s reasonable legal costs were proposed.
The applicant subsequently received the relevant documentation from the local authority, in May 1999 apparently.
By a letter dated 29 June 1999, the applicant’s representatives stated that the parties had reached an agreement whereby the applicant would be granted access to her files by the Council, which had changed its policy, and would receive an ex gratia payment of GBP 2.000 together with legal costs. They therefore asked for the striking of the application out of the list of cases.
THE LAW
Having regard to the applicant’s letter of 29 June 1999, as well as to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the petition as the matter has been resolved. 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 which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy