Search
document

Document text Analytics

HOCKING v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13681/88 • ECHR ID: 001-670

Document date: May 16, 1990

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

HOCKING v. the UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 13681/88 • ECHR ID: 001-670

Document date: May 16, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 13681/88

by Eunice HOCKING

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 16 May 1990, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

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

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

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 15 March 1988

by Eunice HOCKING against the United Kingdom and registered on

21 March 1988 under file No. 13681/88;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1943 and resident

in Manchester. She is represented by Lucas Rogerson, solicitors

practising in Ashton-under-Lyne.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

In February 1987, the applicant received a visit from

Thameside Social Services Department (hereafter the "social services")

of Thameside Metropolitan Borough (hereafter the "local authority")

who informed her that they had received a report from her daughter's

headmaster that her daughter had been sexually abused. The

applicant's daughter, then aged 10, attended a special school, as she

had learning difficulties. She lived at home with the applicant and

her elder brother aged 17. The applicant informed the social services

that her son had had a toy fight with his sister and that she had

bruised her legs. Not satisfied with this explanation, the social

services arranged for the daughter to be examined by a doctor in the

presence of her mother and a representative of the social services.

The doctor, after internal examination, found no indication of sexual

abuse. The social services, apparently still not satisfied, arranged

for a further examination in a hospital, where it was again found that

there was no indication of abuse.

The applicant was very disturbed by the invasion into her

private life as a result of the questioning put to her and her son in

respect of the allegation. This apparently was the second time on

which the headmaster had made an unfounded allegation in respect of

her daughter. While the applicant accepted that the social services

had a duty to investigate the matter, she was concerned that a record

of the allegation had been made by the local authority. Her

solicitors requested on her behalf that records of the unfounded

allegation be destroyed. By letter dated 31 March 1987 the Director

of the Social Services refused to comply with this request, explaining

that it was necessary to keep records of the local authority's actions

taken in respect of its statutory obligations and that though

allegations may be found to be unsubstantiated, further evidence may

come forward later which changes this situation (though he did not

suggest this was the case in respect of the applicant). He also

explained that records were kept for five years before being

destroyed. The applicant's solicitors by letter dated 2 June 1987

requested that the local authority inform them of the statutory or

legal authority for this policy. By letter dated 18 June 1987, the

local authority replied that legislation only specified the length of

time for keeping records concerning adoption or boarding out, but that

it was the practice of the Social Services in this instance to keep

records for five years.

The applicant applied for legal aid to bring judicial review

proceedings in respect of this matter. Her application was refused by

the general committee of the Law Society on 6 October 1987 on the

ground that it appeared unreasonable that she receive legal aid in the

particular circumstances of the case. They stated that (1) the

decision of the local authority was reasonable and that the Divisional

Court would not review it and (2) alternatively, even if judicial

review did lie, the matters in question did not justify proceedings at

the public expense. The applicant's appeal to the area committee was

refused on 19 November 1987.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the local authority's files

contain information relating to the applicant and her family. She

alleges that the storing of such information and its release to other

agencies amount to an interference with her right to respect for her

private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. Since the local

authority admit that there is no legislation pertaining to the keeping

of records in respect of allegations of sexual abuse, the applicant

submits that they are not acting "in accordance with the law" as

required by Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 15 March 1988 and registered

on 21 March 1988.

The Commission decided on 7 October 1988 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and invite them to

submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

applicant's complaints.

The Government submitted observations on 21 April 1989

following two extentions in the time-limit. The applicant has failed

to submit any observations in reply. On 28 February 1990, the

applicant's solicitors were informed by registered letter that, in the

absence of any explanation as to their failure to reply to letters

from the Secretariat, the Commission might strike the case from its

list. No reply was received.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant has failed to respond

to letters from the Secretariat or to provide observations in reply to

the Government. In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the

applicant does not intend to pursue her application before the

Commission within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the

Convention.

It further considers that the respect for Human Rights as

defined in the Convention does not require that the Commission

continues its examination.

It follows that the application shall be struck off the list

of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF

THE LIST OF CASES

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant