Lexploria

Application No. 19580/92

by the T. 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 T. family against the United Kingdom and registered on

4 March 1992 under file No. 19580/92;

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

1930 and 1948 and are resident on South Ronaldsay, Orkney. They have

two children, B. (the third applicant) born on 4 December 1978 and M.

(the fourth applicant) born on 1 November 1982.

They are all of British and Israeli nationality.

They 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 applicants went to live in Orkney in 1988. They are Jewish.

In the absence of a synagogue in Orkney, they attend Quaker services.

This is the second 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 mentioned 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 26 February 1991 Mr. and Mrs. T. 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 two social

workers. One of the social workers said that she had Place of Safety

Orders for the children. She had documents in her hand. Mr. T. was

made to leave the room to fetch his spectacles and was seized by two

of the policemen. Mr. and Mrs. T. were told that their children were

in moral danger. No attempt was made to explain to them the nature and

implication of a Place of Safety Order. No attempt was made to

reassure Mr. and Mrs. T., or the children, as to the purpose, timescale

or procedure involved in the children's removal or the arrangements

thereafter.

Mr. T. attempted to tell the social workers that the children

were Jewish but was interrupted before he could do so, and told that

they knew perfectly well how to look after the children. The children

were then taken outside to a car. Both children were clearly confused.

They were then driven away by the social workers.

Between 29 February and 5 March 1991 Mrs. T. telephoned Mr. Lee,

the Director of Social Work, several times. She asked where the

children were being held, but he refused to tell her. She asked that

a Rabbi be allowed to visit the children and told him that this was

very important. She wanted the foster parents to be advised of the

particular needs of Jewish children, including dietary requirements and

the use of utensils. She was also concerned that Passover was due to

occur on 29 March 1991. Mr. Lee refused, telling her that a Rabbi's

presence would be unhelpful to "disclosure".

On or about 15 March 1991 Mrs. T. wrote to Mr. Lee detailing her

concern that the children should celebrate Passover. She wrote again

on 27 March 1991. By letter dated 23 March 1991 he replied that both

children said they did not wish to celebrate Passover except with their

parents but that this was not possible.

Proceedings before the Children's Hearings and the Sheriff

See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 3-7. The facts insofar as

they differ are as follows:

At the Hearings on 5 March 1991 involving the applicants, Mr. and

Mrs. T. were accompanied by Mr. Targowski. The Chairman of the

Children's Hearing read out the grounds of referral. Mr. and Mrs. T.

were asked whether they accepted the grounds of referral. They stated

that they did not. There was no discussion of the allegation or of any

evidence substantiating them. No report of any description was

produced or referred to. Mrs. Sue Millar, the leader of the social

workers' team, spoke during the Hearing and stated that the children

would be kept separated. Mr. and Mrs. T. attempted to raise the

question of access, but were told that it was a matter for the Social

Work Department. Mrs. T. had to be helped out of the Hearing.

At the Hearings on 25 March 1991 concerned with the applicants'

children, Mr. and Mrs. T. tried to raise the issue of medical evidence,

but were told that that could not be discussed. They asked the

Hearings to consider alternative placements for the children. They had

investigated the possibility of Jewish families being used as foster

parents, and had discovered that such placements were readily available

in London and might also be available in Edinburgh. This was opposed

by the representatives of the Social Work Department and the Hearings

decided that they could not consider placements.

On 30 March 1981 the Social Work Department finally informed Mr.

and Mrs. T. that a Rabbi could visit the children and that arrangements

had been made for such a visit to take place on 2 April 1991.

On 1 March 1991 B. (the third applicant) underwent an intimate

medical examination for signs of sexual abuse. His parents' consent

had not been obtained and they were not informed of the examination.

B. was not advised he was entitled to refuse to undergo the

examination. He subsequently complained to his parents about the

medical examination. He told them that he had been stripped. He was

asked about his circumcision and in particular when and why it had been

carried out. This caused him extreme embarrassment and worry (Mellor

Report). He had, like other Jewish boys, been circumcised when a baby.

During his period of detention B. was not allowed any contact

with his family or friends by letter, phone or otherwise. He did not

receive any of the correspondence sent to him until the day of his

return home. He was unable to celebrate Passover until 2 April when

a Rabbi gained access supervised by a social worker who took notes.

Relevant domestic law and practice

See B., Application No. 19579/92, p. 7.

COMPLAINTS

See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp.7-9.

The applicants in this case complain also under Article 9 of the

Convention that the children were unable to manifest their religion in

worship or in practice and observance. In particular, they were given

non-kosher food, were unable to celebrate Passover and were unable to

see a Rabbi until shortly before they were returned home. They submit

that none of these aspects of their detention were prescribed by law

or could be regarded as necessary for any of the purposes specified in

paragraph 2 of this provision.

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

T. FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

T. FAMILY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI