Search
document

Document text Analytics

R. V. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15396/89 • ECHR ID: 001-967

Document date: September 6, 1991

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

R. V. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 15396/89 • ECHR ID: 001-967

Document date: September 6, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant