Search
document

Document text Analytics

ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 21178/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45838

Document date: September 10, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 21178/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45838

Document date: September 10, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST CHAMBER

Application No. 21178/93

Corralyn Roberts

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 10 September 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................... 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ............................... 3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by

Corralyn Roberts against the United Kingdom on 21 October 1992. It was

registered on 20 January 1993 under file No. 21178/93.

The applicant was represented before the Commission by Harding

and Rowe, solicitors practising in Bideford. The respondent Government

were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan Dickson of the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office.

2. On 11 January 1995, the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the

parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement

of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined

in this Convention."

3. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 September 1996 adopted this

Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,

is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution

reached.

4. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is a British citizen born in 1966 and Bideford.

6. At the time of the application to the Commission, she had three

children, a son L. born on 27 August 1984, a son M. on 18 August 1987

and a daughter B born on 13 June 1989 who had been taken into care.

7. Following a number of interventions by the social services, on

29 November 1989, the Juvenile Court made an order returning the

children to the applicant under a three year supervision order. On

7 December 1989, the applicant took the three children to live in

Spain without informing the local authority. When she returned to the

United Kingdom with the children on 8 March 1990, social workers met

them at the airport and the children were taken into care. The children

had been made wards of court on 7 December 1989 after the discovery

that they had been taken from the country and an interim order for care

and control made to the local authority.

8. On 1 August 1990, the local authority decided that the

applicant's access to the children should be reduced to once per month

and on 21 September 1990, the local authority terminated access

completely.

9. On 21 December 1990, the applicant applied to the court for

access.

10. The case concerning L., M. and B. was eventually heard in

May 1992. In his judgment given on 14 May 1992, the High Court judge

commented on the passage of time, during which circumstances had

changed but concluded therefore that notwithstanding the great

improvement in the applicant's lifestyle, attitude and behaviour he

would make a care order in respect of all three children.

11. The applicant made a further application for residence and

contact orders in respect of the three children which was heard

together with the application of the local authority to free B. for

adoption. After a judgment given on 27 June 1994, the applicant's

applications for residence orders in respect of all three children were

dismissed as was her application for contact with B. Her applications

for contact with L. and M. were not expressly dismissed, the judge

making no order and leaving it to the discretion of the local

authority. The application freeing B. for adoption was granted, the

applicant's consent being dispensed with on the grounds that it was

being unreasonably withheld. In the judgment the judge commented

adversely on the initial decision to stop access at an early stage in

the proceedings but found that the interests of the children required

a refusal of her applications.

12. The applicant complained that she has been deprived of her three

children unjustifiably and in violation of Article 8 of the

Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the

Convention that she did not receive a fair hearing within a reasonable

time.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

13. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (First Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

14. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on

the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the

possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

15. Between January 1995 and June 1996 there were discussions between

the parties concerning a friendly settlement of the case.

16. On 21 May 1996, the Commission considered the state of

proceedings of the case. In view of the parties' apparent willingness

to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission made proposals for the

consideration of the parties. As a result of these negotiations, the

parties reached agreement in the terms set out below.

17. By letter dated 12 June 1996, the Government agreed to settle the

case on the basis of an ex gratia payment to the applicant of £ 10 000

and payment of reasonable legal costs.

18. In her letter of 28 June 1996, the applicant accepted the

proposed terms.

19. At its session on 10 September 1996, the Commission found that

the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

20. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant