Search
document

Document text Analytics

P. G. v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10822/84 • ECHR ID: 001-362

Document date: May 7, 1987

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

P. G. v. UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 10822/84 • ECHR ID: 001-362

Document date: May 7, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 10822/84

by P.G.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 7 May 1987 the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

J. A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

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 6 April 1983

by P.G. against the United Kingdom and registered on

20 February 1984 under file N° 10822/84;

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, Ms. P.G., is a citizen of the

United Kingdom, born in 1953. She is a medical secretary by

profession and at present resides in W., England. She is

represented, in proceedings before the Commission, by

Miss Tina Dempster of the National Council for Civil Liberties.

The applicant was, at the time of the introduction of the

application, the common-law wife of Mr. J.W. who, following his

conviction on 20 May 1983 at the Birmingham Crown Court for conspiracy

to rob, is at present serving a ten-year sentence of imprisonment. He

is due to be released in September 1988.

On 15 July 1983 the applicant wrote to the Home Office

requesting permission to be artificially inseminated with her

common-law husband as a donor. The application was supported by the

applicant's doctor who indicated that facilities for artificial

insemination were available at a hospital close to the prison.

This request was refused by the Secretary of State for the

Home Department in a letter dated 17 August 1983. In his letter he

stated as follows:

"Facilities for artificial insemination are not normally

made available to prisoners, although any application is

very carefully considered in the light of the circumstances

of the case to see if there are any wholly exceptional

features which might justify such an arrangement. Miss G.

and Mr. W.'s case is not one, however, where

it would be appropriate to make an exception."

In a subsequent letter dated 4 November 1983 confirming this

refusal, the Secretary of State indicated that in fact no prisoner had

yet been allowed facilities for artificial insemination.

Since the submission of her application to the Commission, the

applicant was found to have developed a pre-cancerous abnormality of

the cervix and received laser treatment at the Women's Hospital in

Birmingham. On 15 May 1985 she submitted a fresh request to the

Secretary of State pointing out that in the light of medical evidence

it might be too late for her to conceive, either naturally or

artificially, by the time Mr. W. was released from prison in

September 1988. She claims that no reply was received to this

petition.

In the meantime the Governor of Birmingham Prison granted

permission for the applicant to marry Mr. W. in the prison chapel

and the marriage took place on 15 July 1985.

A decision was subsequently taken by the Secretary of State of

the Home Department in June 1986 to grant the applicant's request for

facilities to enable her to be artifically inseminated with her

husband as the donor.

COMPLAINTS AND SUBMISSIONS

The applicant submits that the earlier refusal of the

Secretary of State to grant her permission to be artificially

inseminated with her husband as donor constituted a breach of her

right to respect for private and family life under Art. 8 of the

Convention. She concedes that the right to private and family life

may be subject to interference in the interests of public safety.

However, she points out that the arrangements needed for her then

common-law husband to act as a donor would not pose any threat to

prison security, and would not require the supervision needed for a

conjugal visit (No. 8166/78, D.R. 13 p. 241).

She also alleges a breach of her right to found a family as

guaranteed by Art. 12.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on the 6 April 1983 and

registered on 20 February 1984. It was first examined by the

Commission on 3 March 1986 when it was decided to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and to ask them to submit

their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application

in so far as it raised issues under Articles 8 and 12 (Art. 8, 12) of the

Convention. These observations were to be submitted by 23 May 1986.

In a letter dated 23 June 1986 the Agent of the Government

informed the Commission that the Secretary of State had decided to

grant the applicant's request for facilities to enable her to be

artificially inseminated with her husband, Mr. J.W., as the

donor. The applicant was informed of this decision and of the

arrangements to give effect to it.

The applicant's legal representative was requested, in letters

dated 2 July 1986, 20 September 1986, 10 November 1986 and 15 January

1987 whether, in the light of this development, the applicant wished

to maintain her application before the Commission. No reply has been

received to these letters.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant complained, under

Articles 8 (Art. 8) and 12 (Art. 12) of the Convention, of the refusal

by the Secretary of State to allow her to be artificially inseminated

by her husband as the donor. It further notes that the Secretary of

State granted the applicant's request in June 1986 and that no reply

has been sent to letters from the Secretariat requesting her to

indicate whether she intended to maintain her application before the

Commission. The Commission finds that the applicant no longer wishes

to pursue her application and that there are no reasons relating to

the general interest to continue an examination of the application.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant