Information Note on the Court’s case-law 85

April 2006

Dickson v. the United Kingdom - 44362/04

Judgment 18.4.2006 [Section IV]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for family life

Respect for private life

Husband in prison refused permission for artificial insemination: no violation

Article 12

Found a family

Husband in prison refused permission for artificial insemination: no violation

[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 13 September 2006]

Facts : In 1994 the first applicant, Mr Dickson, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (the minimum period to be served) of 15 years. He has no children. In 1999 he met a woman who was likewise imprisoned and in 2001 they were married. Mrs Dickson already ha d three children from other relationships. After Mrs Dickson had been released the couple requested artificial insemination facilities to enable them to have a child together, arguing that it would not otherwise be possible, given Mr Dickson’s earliest rel ease date and Mrs Dickson’s age. The Secretary of State refused their application. They appealed unsuccessfully.

Law

Article 8 – The Court noted that the Secretary of State had given careful consideration to the applicants’ circumstances, including the unl ikely event of the couple being able to conceive after Mr Dickson’s release from prison, before concluding that those factors had been outweighed by the other factors. Particular reference had been given to the nature and gravity of Mr Dickson’s crime and the welfare of any child who might be conceived, in the light of the father’s prolonged absence for an important part of its childhood years and the apparent lack of sufficient material provision and immediate support network in place for the mother and ch ild. Moreover, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had found the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the facilities had been neither unreasonable nor disproportionate. In those circumstances it had not been shown that the decision to refus e facilities for artificial insemination had been arbitrary or unreasonable or had failed to strike a fair balance between general interest of the community and the interests of the individual. There had accordingly been no failure to respect the applicant s’ rights to private and family life.

Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).

Article 12 – An interference with family life which is justified under Article 8 cannot at the same time constitute a violation of Article 12.

Conclusion : n o violation (four votes to three).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes