Lexploria

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)

Menu

M. FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

M. FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM