AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15396/89
by R.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 6 September 1991, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
J.A. FROWEIN
F. ERMACORA
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 RUIZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
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 1 June 1989
by R. against the United Kingdom and registered
on 25 August 1989 under file No. 15396/89.
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen born in 1948 and resident
in Blackpool.
The applicant has a daughter D, who gave birth to a daughter V
on 8 December 1986. On 15 July 1988 D made statements to her health
visitor and to the police, which resulted in the applicant being
arrested and questioned on 31 July 1988 as regards alleged rape and
incest. On 18 April 1989 the applicant was charged with incest and
rape in respect of his daughter D. The applicant initially denied
that he had committed these offences and gave blood samples to the
police which were subjected to DNA testing and compared with blood
samples from D and V. The result of the test was consistent with the
applicant being the biological father of V, and he eventually pleaded
guilty to the allegation of incest. He was convicted on 5 December
1989 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
The applicant had divorced his first wife some years earlier
and lived with another woman S, who has a daughter T born in 1980.
The applicant and S have also had a son B born in 1989. They were
informed by the Social Services in Blackpool that the children would
be taken into care if the applicant continued to have contact with
them. The applicant left his home to live with his sister. S and the
children remained in the house. The applicant married S on 9 June
1989.
On 19 August 1989, a place of safety order was made in respect
of T. It appears that she returned to her mother when the applicant
was imprisoned.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the police and the welfare
authorities have interfered with his private life, and prevented him
living with his wife and their children. He complains that T has
since been taken into care on false grounds. He further complains of
being treated as guilty by the police and welfare authorities and of
being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police while
in their custody in July 1988.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that he is prevented from living
with his wife and children.
The Commission has examined these complaints under Article 8
(Art. 8) of the Convention which provides:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others."
The Commission recalls that the applicant was convicted of
incest and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It notes that
there is no legal impediment to the applicant's returning to his wife,
child and step-child on his release. Indeed, it is conceivable that,
if the applicant co-operates with the Social Services, he will be
permitted to remain in the house on his return from prison.
Accordingly, this aspect of the application discloses no lack of
respect for the applicant's family life and this complaint is
therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant complains of being treated as guilty by the
police and welfare authorities.
Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention provides:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The Commission notes that the police and welfare authorities
took action in response to D's allegations against the applicant, the
police by investigating and bringing charges against the applicant and
the welfare authorities by exercising their statutory responsibility
to have regard to the welfare of children within their jurisdiction.
The Commission finds no indication in the present case that
the measures taken amount to a presumption of guilt contrary to
Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicant also complains of his treatment by the
police while in their custody after his arrest in July 1988. He
alleges a violation of Article 3 (Art. 23) in this regard.
However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or
not this complaint discloses any appearance of a violation of Article
3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, as Article 26 of the Convention provides
that the Commission "may only deal with the matter ... within a period
of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken".
In the present case, the treatment of which the applicant
complains occurred in July 1988 whereas the application was submitted
to the Commission on 1 June 1989, that is, more than six months
subsequent to the treatment complained of. Furthermore, an
examination of the case, assuming that there were no domestic remedies
the applicant was able to exhaust, does not disclose the existence of
any special circumstances which might have interrupted or suspended
the running of that period.
It follows that this part of the application has been
introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy