Application No. 19582/92
by the M. 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 M. family against the United Kingdom and registered on
4 March 1992 under file No. 19582/92;
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
1946 and 1945 respectively. They are resident in South Ronaldsay,
Orkney. They have, inter alia, two children, S. (the third applicant)
born on 5 January 1976, and J. (the fourth applicant) born on
3 September 1979. They are all British citizens.
The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr. John
Moir, a solicitor practising in Orkney.
The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as
follows.
The first and second applicants came to live in Orkney in 1984.
They are practising Quakers.
This is the last 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 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. M. were awoken by
knocking on the door of their house. They and the children had been
asleep in bed. At the door were five police officers and three social
workers. Mr. and Mrs. M. were told that the social workers were there
to remove the children as they had reason to believe that the children
were at risk and had been subjected to "lewd and libidinous practices"
(an archaic Scottish legal expression, descriptive of sexual offences,
which would not generally be understood by non-lawyers). One of the
social workers said that they would wake the children. Mrs. M. ran
ahead of them to wake the children herself. The children got up and
dressed. A social worker insisted on being present while they dressed,
despite S.'s request for privacy. Mrs. M. told the children that she
and Mr. M. were being accused of "sexy goings-on". She was told by a
social worker to be quiet. Mr. M. was handed a copy of each of the
Place of Safety Orders referring to S. and J. No attempt was made to
explain the nature of implications of such an order. It was noted that
Mr. and Mrs. M. "appeared shocked".
Mrs. M. brought the children downstairs from their bedrooms. The
children were visibly upset. Mrs. M. asked to be allowed to give the
children some breakfast. This was not allowed. Mr. M. asked the
police officer in charge if the children could take a book or a teddy
bear or a personal stereo. The police officer said that that was not
allowed. The children were then taken away from the house by the
social workers. No attempt was made to reassure Mr. and Mrs. M., or
the children, as to the purpose, timescale or procedure involved in
their removal or the arrangements thereafter.
Mr. and Mrs. M. thereafter contacted Mr. Paul Lee, the Director
of Social Work, and asked him what investigations had been made prior
to the uplift of the children. He refused to discuss the matter with
them. Mr. and Mrs. M. invited him to come and see them, but he refused
to do so. Subsequently, the M. family on a number of occasions
requested Mr. Lee and other social workers to visit them at home. They
also asked them to visit the place where the abuse was supposed to have
occurred (which even the police did not do), which would have revealed
how implausible the allegations were. They also invited the RSSPCC to
speak to the parents. All these requests met with negative responses.
Mr. and Mrs. M. had learned informally that S. was being held in
an institution likely to be some sort of residential establishment for
problem children (as was in fact the case). They were extremely
apprehensive as to S.'s well-being in such an establishment. They were
also concerned about S.'s schooling, especially as he was due to sit
important national examinations in April 1991.
By letter dated 15 March 1991, the M. family's solicitor
complained to Mr. Lee that one of S.'s teachers had been prevented from
forwarding school work to him. It was pointed out that the work was
essential to his national assessment and thus to his prospects of
obtaining a place at university. A letter to similar effect, from the
teacher concerned, was enclosed. Confirmation was requested that there
would be no further bar to work being passed to and from his teachers.
By letter dated 22 March, Mr. Lee responded to the request for
S.'s teaching material to be forwarded to him, and stated that there
was no bar on such material being sent to him. Thereafter teaching
materials were forwarded for transmission to S. None in fact reached
him until 1 April 1991.
The proceedings before the Children's Hearings and the Sheriff
See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 3-7. The facts insofar as
they are different are as follows:
At the Children's Hearings on 5 March 1991 involving the
applicants, Mr. and Mrs. M. were accompanied by Mr. Targowsksi and by
a family friend, Christine Davis, the Chairman (at that time, the
Chairman-elect) of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The Assistant
Reporter read out the grounds of referral. Mr. and Mrs. M. were asked
whether they accepted the grounds of referral. They stated that they
did not. Mr. M. objected to the children not being present and asked
for a report on the children's views on the grounds of referral. He
was told that no such report was available. No report of any
description was produced or referred to at the Hearing. Mr. and
Mrs. M. disputed the need to detain the children and requested access
to them. They were told by Mr. Sloan, the Acting Reporter, that that
would not be allowed. They also asked whether the children could not
be cared for by one or other of the families referred to in the letter
dated 3 March 1991 sent to Mr. Sloan by H. and K., the adult children
of the family. It did not appear that the letter had been placed
before the Hearing, although Mr. Sloan admitted that he had received
it.
Mrs. M. repeatedly broke down during the Hearings and was
consoled by Christine Davis. Mrs. Davis was threatened by Mr. Sloan
with ejection from the Hearing, under Rule 11(3) of the 1986 Rules, on
the ground that her behaviour in consoling Mrs. M. was disruptive.
On 18 March 1991 the curator appointed to S. and J. on 6 March
1991 visited Orkney. He spent most of the day at the Social Work
Department. He spent about 15 minutes with Mrs. M. He had not seen
the children.
At the Hearings on 25 March 1991 concerned with the M. children,
Mr. and Mrs. M. were accompanied by their solicitor and by their
counsel, who raised a number of matters. In particular he submitted
that the situation had changed now that the results of the medical
examinations were known. As there was no evidence of abuse of any of
the children, they should be returned. If S. and J. were to be kept
in a "place of safety" it should be the boarding school selected by
their parents. Both solicitor and counsel were threatened with
ejection under Rule 11 (3) of the 1986 Rules and counsel in particular
was ordered not to make submissions, otherwise he would be ejected.
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