CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 novembre 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 10454/83     GRAHAM GASKIN     against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 13 November 1987)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18)   .......................         1           The application (paras. 2-4) ......................         1           The proceedings (paras. 5-13) .....................         1           The present Report (paras. 14-18) .................         3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 19-42) .........         4     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 43-82) .........         9     1.     The applicant (paras. 43-63) ......................         9     2.     The Government (paras. 64-82) .....................        12     IV.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 83-110) ...........        18     A.     Points at issue (para. 83) ........................        18     B.     Is the refusal of access to the file an         interference with the applicant's rights under         Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention?         (paras. 84-91) ....................................        18     C.     Is the interference justified under Article 8         para. 2 of the Convention? (paras. 91-97) .........        19           a)   In accordance with the law (paras. 92-96) .....        20           b)   Legitimate aim (para. 97) .....................        21           c)   Necessity in a democratic society             (paras. 98-103) ...............................        21     D.     Conclusion (para. 104) ............................        23     E.     Does the refusal of access to the file violate         Article 10 of the Convention? (paras. 105-108) ....        23     F.     Conclusion (para. 109) ............................        24     G.     Recapitulation (para. 110) ........................        24   Partly dissenting opinion of MM. G. Jörundsson, A.S. Gözübüyük, A. Weitzel, H. Danelius and Sir Basil Hall ............................................        25   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   H.G. Schermers ...........        27   Appendix I       History of the proceedings ................        28   Appendix II      Decision on the admissibility                 of the application ........................        30   I.       INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before it.           The application   2.       The applicant is a British citizen born in 1959 now living in Denmark.   He has been represented before the Commission by Messrs.   E. Rex Makin & Co., Solicitors of Liverpool.   The respondent Government were represented by Mr.   M. Eaton and subsequently by Mr.   M. Wood, both of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, as their Agent.   3.       In 1959, aged six months, the applicant was taken into care by the Liverpool City Council ("the local authority") following his mother's death.   He remained in the local authority's care until his majority in 1977.   4.       The applicant seeks access to the file maintained on him during his period of care by the local authority.   He contends that he was badly treated in care and originally wished to take legal proceedings in this connection.   Now, however, he wants access to the file in order to be able to address the difficulties and personal problems which his unsettled background, and his lack of knowledge of his past, has created.   He contends that the refusal of access to the whole file is contrary to his right to respect for his private and family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention and his right to receive information, protected by Article 10 of the Convention.           The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 17 February 1983 and was registered on 13 June 1983.   6.       On 4 July 1984 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit before 2 November 1984 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The respondent Government's observations were submitted, after an extension of the time-limit until 19 December 1984, on 17 December 1984, and observations in reply were submitted by the applicant's representatives on 22 April 1985.   7.       On 8 July 1985 the Commission decided to invite the parties to make submissions on the admissibility and merits of the application at a hearing pursuant to Rule 42 (3)(b) of the Rules of Procedure.   At the hearing, which was held on 23 January 1986, the parties were represented as follows:           For the Government:   Mr.   M. R. Eaton          Foreign and Commonwealth Office    Agent   Mr.   N. Bratza            Barrister                          Counsel   Miss P. Barrett          )                                  Adviser                         )   Department of Health Mr.   E. R. Moutrie        )           and                     Adviser                         )      Social Security Mr.   R. Langham           )                                  Adviser   Mr.   M. Swallow           Liverpool City Council, Solicitor Adviser           For the applicant:   Mr.   E. Rex Makin         Solicitor                          Counsel   Mr.   Robin Makin          Solicitor's articled clerk         Adviser     8.       On 23 January 1986 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint concerning the continuing refusal of the local authority to give him access to the file.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   9.       The parties were informed of the Commission's decision by telephone on 24 January 1986 and by letter on 12 February 1986.   They were further informed that the Commission had decided to invite the respondent Government pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure to provide certain information concerning the nature of the file and the restriction of access to it.   The time limit for the submission of this information was to run from the dispatch of the text of the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application.   These questions were communicated to the respondent Government on 25 March 1986 when the Commission's decision on admissibility was dispatched to the parties pursuant to Rule 43 (1) of the Rules of Procedure.   10.      On 18 June 1986 the respondent Government provided the information requested by the Commission, which was forwarded to the applicant's representatives for their comments in reply.   The applicant's representatives' comments were submitted on 28 July 1986.   11.      On 13 October 1986 the Commission resumed its examination of the merits of the application and invited the parties to submit such further observations on the merits of the application as they might wish to make before 2 January 1987.   12.      On 2 December 1986 the respondent Government informed the Commission that they did not wish to lodge any further observations on the merits.   On 13 January 1987 the applicant's representatives informed the Commission that they did not propose to lodge any further observations on the merits.   13.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which a settlement can be effected.           The present Report   14.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                   MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                   S. TRECHSEL                   G. SPERDUTI                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J. C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL   15.      The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 13 November 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.      The purpose of the present Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is:           (i)   to establish the facts,   and           (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found              disclose a breach by the State concerned of its              obligations under the Convention.   17.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   18.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     19.      The applicant is a British citizen born in 1959 who now lives in Denmark.   In December 1959 the applicant was taken into the care of Liverpool City Council ("the local authority") under Section 1 of the Children Act 1948 following the death of his mother.   He remained in the care of the local authority until he attained his majority in 1977.   During the major part of this period the applicant was boarded out with various foster parents, subject to the provisions of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955.   Under the terms of those regulations the local authority was under a duty to keep certain confidential records concerning the applicant and his care.   20.      The applicant contends that he was extremely badly treated in care, including treatment amounting to ill-treatment, and since his majority has wished to obtain details of where he was kept and by whom and in what conditions in order to be able to substantiate his allegations and to help him to overcome his problems and learn about his past.   21.      On 9 October 1978 the applicant visited the offices of the Social Services Department of the local authority and was informally shown his case file.   It appears that the applicant managed to leave the building with the file, which he subsequently returned on 12 October 1978.   22.      In 1979 the applicant sought to bring proceedings against the local authority for damages for personal injuries which he contends were caused by its negligent failure to carry out its duties towards him.   In connection with these proceedings the applicant made an application under Section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 ("the 1970 Act") for discovery of the local authority's case notes and records made during his period in care.   Section 31 of the 1970 Act provides that the High Court may order such disclosure to a person who is likely to be a party to legal proceedings for personal injuries or death.   23.      The applicant's originating summons requesting discovery of the case file and records came before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court on 22 February 1980.   It was conceded by the local authority that a file on the applicant's period spent in care existed and that documents which would be relevant to the applicant's proposed proceedings for personal injuries were held by it.   The local authority objected to the grant of discovery on the ground that disclosure and production would be contrary to the public interest.   24.      It was contended for the local authority that the keeping of detailed case records on every child in care was necessary to ensure that the authority's judgments and decisions made in respect of such children could be based upon the fullest possible information.   In contrast with the natural parents, who had their own experience to draw on in taking such decisions in relation to their child or children, the local authority, with changing personnel, had no substitute for full and frank records compiled by those in contact with, and responsible for, the care of any child in care.   The principal contributors to these case records were medical practitioners, school teachers, police and probation officers, social workers, health visitors, foster parents and residential school staff. Their contributions to the case records were treated in the strictest confidence and it was considered by the local authority to be axiomatic to the proper conduct of the care system that such records be as full and frank as possible.   The authority therefore contended that, if discovery were ordered, the public interest in the proper operation of the child care service would be jeopardised since the contributors to the records would be reluctant to be frank unless they could be sure that the reports would be protected from disclosure.   25.      The applicant contended that the information held by the local authority in the form of the records and case file was decisive as evidence in his proposed proceedings for personal injuries against the local authority, and that it should therefore be made available to him on the general principles of discovery.   He further argued that it was also in the public interest that some measure of review of the standard of care provided by a local authority in relation to a child in its care be available.   26.      The judge did not read the records in question, but evaluated the arguments as to whether the applicant should be given access to the file for the purpose of the proposed litigation.   He concluded:           "I am left in no doubt that it is necessary for the proper         functioning of the child care service that the         confidentiality of the relevant documents should be         preserved.   This is a very important service to which the         interests - also very important - of the individual must, in         my judgment, bow.   I have no doubt that the public interest         will be better served by refusing discovery and this I do."   27.      The applicant appealed from this decision to the Court of Appeal.   On 27 June 1980 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The applicant's petition for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was rejected.   28.      The applicant has since sought access to the whole file, otherwise than for the purposes of litigation.   On 21 October 1980 the local authority passed a resolution relating to access to personal files held by the Social Services Department setting up a sub-committee to make recommendations on access to personal social services files, and to investigate the allegations in the case relating to the applicant.   29.      This Child Care Records Sub-Committee ("the sub-committee") passed a resolution dated 17 June 1982 which recommended that relevant child care records should be made available to ex-clients of the local authority once all information obtained from members of the medical profession or from the police service had been excluded from such records.   In relation to the applicant the sub-committee stated that it had carefully considered all the papers relating to him and found no evidence that would indicate "that the officers concerned carried out their duties in other than a caring manner".   There were various aspects of the applicant's treatment which might cause concern, but the sub-committee recommended that, subject to the restrictions set out above, the records should be made available to the applicant who should be entitled to take copies if he so wished.   This resolution was approved by the Social Services Committee of the local authority on 30 June 1982, with one amendment to the effect that when a request is received from an appropriate person for the disclosure of all the information kept on the personal file relating to that individual, the Director of Social Services should be instructed to request all members of the medical profession and the police service for their permission to disclose information and reports which they have submitted to that particular file.   30.      Mr.   J.H. Lea, a councillor of the local authority, who was also a member of the sub-committee, dissented from the sub-committee's resolution of 17 June 1982.   He sought and obtained the consent of the Attorney General to bring a relator action in which he applied ex parte for a declaration and an injunction to prevent the proposals of the sub-committee set out in the resolution of 30 June 1982 from being adopted.   On 26 July 1982 Balcombe J. ordered that the local authority be restrained from disclosing to any person records maintained by it relating to the welfare of children under the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955, or the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1976, or otherwise, except as permitted by these Regulations and except for the purpose of enabling the local authority to carry out its statutory duties, until the trial of the action or until further order.   31.      The local authority passed a resolution on 28 July 1982 instructing its officers not to implement the resolution of 30 June 1982 until the proceedings brought by Mr.   Lea were determined or withdrawn.   32.      On 26 January 1983 the local authority approved a further resolution of the sub-committee relating to access to personal social services records.   This resolution reiterated the general terms of the earlier resolution of 30 June 1982, added certain further restrictions upon the disclosure of information to clients of the Social Services Department, and resolved that such information should, subject to the restrictions, be shown to those clients on their request after 1 March 1983.   As regards the applicant, it was resolved to contact the various suppliers of the information contained in the file with a view to disclosure.   The local authority's officers were instructed not to implement this resolution until the action brought by Mr.   Lea was withdrawn.   This action was in fact discontinued on 13 May 1983.   33.      On 29 June 1983 the local authority confirmed a further resolution to the effect that the resolution of 26 January 1983 would be implemented as from 1 September 1983.   34.      On 26 August 1983 proceedings were instituted by the Attorney General in the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the resolution of 26 January 1983 as amended by that of 29 June 1983 to allow disclosure of, and access to, social work records on the grounds that the resolution was, and that the implementation of the resolution by the local authority would be, contrary to law and/or outside the legal powers of the local authority.   On 31 August 1983 leave was granted to the Attorney General to seek a declaration and an injunction restraining the local authority from carrying into effect the resolution of 26 January 1983 as amended.   35.      The local authority confirmed a further resolution on 9 November 1983 setting out further grounds upon which certain information could be withheld from a client requesting it, and providing for suitable training programmes for staff to enable them properly to carry out the policy of making the records available to clients.   The resolution was not to be implemented until the action by the Attorney General was withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.   36.      The resolution provided that the applicant's file should be made available to him if the contributors to the file consented and that the various contributors of the information contained in the file should be contacted for their permission before the release of that information.   Following the passing of this resolution the Attorney General withdrew the proceedings.   37.      On 23 May 1986 certain documents in the file were forwarded to the applicant's representatives.   These were documents in respect of which the contributors had consented to their disclosure to the applicant.   38.      According to the information submitted by the respondent Government and not disputed by the applicant, the file contains (inter alia) basic factual information concerning the applicant's early childhood and background.   It is still intact as a whole, relating to the whole period which the applicant spent in care.   The file currently serves no operational purpose and would normally have been destroyed in 1980, three years after the applicant's majority.   It was retained while the litigation and other proceedings in the United Kingdom relating to it were conducted and is currently maintained in the light of the proceedings before the Commission.   39.      Apart from the erroneous access given to the applicant in October 1978 the only persons with access to the file are councillors of the local authority who have investigated his complaints.   40.      The documents made available to the applicant's representatives on 23 May 1986 resulted from consultations with the contributors to the file.   Seventeen consented to their contributions being disclosed; their contributions covered the whole period during which the applicant was in care.   The size of each contribution disclosed varied from one letter to numerous letters and reports.   The respondent Government have stated that if consent is given by other contributors, further parts of the file will be disclosed to the applicant.   41.      Those contributors who have not consented to disclosure have not been asked to give reasons by the local authority, but many have in fact done so.   These reasons have included that third parties are involved whose interests could be prejudiced; that the contribution is valueless out of context, was regarded as subject to professional confidence at the time made and that confidence should not be breached in retrospect; that solicitors acting for the contributor wish to be assured that disclosure will not take place; (in the case of an institution) that it is not the practice to disclose reports to clients, but they are willing to provide reports to employers if it will help to get a job or place on a training course; that the contributor is in ill-health, now unable to recall details if cross-examined, and to give evidence would be harmful and stressful to the contributor if he were now required to disclose; that the contributor has been advised by his solicitors that the documents remain confidential.   42.      The applicant's representatives have submitted a letter of 15 July 1986 from the Director of Social Services of the local authority referring to the question of releasing further contributions from the file in the following terms:           "I refer to your letter dated 11 June 1986.           I would wish to be as helpful as possible to you, but at         the end of the day suspect that we may have genuine         differences of opinion.   At least I take that to be the         implication of the questions you asked.           I do not think therefore, that we can take this         correspondence further in a profitable way because, as I         have said, it is, in the last analysis, for the provider         of information, retrospectively collected, to release or         refuse to release, in their absolute discretion, the         information supplied from the 'confidential' embargo         originally accorded to it.   The reasons for releasing or         not releasing are irrelevant whether they are good, bad         or indifferent.           I regret I do not feel able to help you further."   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES     1.       The applicant   a)       Introduction   43.      The applicant complains that he cannot have full access to the case file held by the Social Services Department of the local authority which relates to the period which he spent in care.   He seeks access to the file in order to show how badly treated he was, how poor the system was and to enable him to establish his background.   He seeks access to the file to enable him to seek treatment for the psychological problems which he argues stem from his treatment while in the care of the local authority.   44.      The applicant contends that the file represented the only coherent record of his childhood and adolescence.   His remaining family members, with whom his contact was interrupted by his period in care, would not be able to provide the information in question since he was neither in their care, nor in contact with them at the relevant time.   He contends that the denial of his access to the whole file in these circumstances is in breach of his right to respect for his private and family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention and contrary to his right to receive information protected by Article 10 of the Convention.   b)       Article 8   45.      The applicant contends that the treatment received by him whilst he was in the care of the local authority violated Article 8 in two ways.   Firstly, his private life and his home were not respected while he was in care, and secondly the severe psychological damage suffered by the applicant whilst in the care of the local authority continues adversely to affect his private and family life.   The refusal to make the records available to the applicant means that he cannot seek medical help for these psychological problems.   Moreover, the purpose of the records (that of making decisions concerning the applicant while he was in care) has ceased.   46.      If a child were being cared for by his natural parents the treatment which he received from them would be open to scrutiny by the courts.   The Government contend that the local authority seeks to mirror the functions of natural parents in respect of a child in its care.   It should therefore be accountable in the same way in which a natural parent is accountable.   A natural parent would have to release any relevant documents and a local authority should be required to do likewise.   A child in the care of a local authority should not be in a worse position than a child in the care of his natural parents.   c)       Article 10   47.      The present position in English law is that a local authority is entitled to refuse to release records relating to a child's period in its care regardless of whether the child has been maltreated and whether or not he or she is still in the local authority's care.   48.      The applicant submits that none of the exceptions contained in Article 10 para. 2 are referable to the present facts.   The English courts refused to deal with the case on its merits and simply applied a blanket privilege.   49.      As regards the Government's claim that the refusal to hand over the records was justifiable as being "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others", the records were compiled by persons acting under a professional duty and being remunerated for their efforts.   50.      If the persons responsible for making decisions which are recorded in the file have been negligent then they have been in breach of the implied terms of their contract of employment with the local authority to exercise reasonable care and skill.   The local authority owes a duty of care to the applicant and if its servants and/or agents have been negligent in this case then the local authority is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of such people.   51.      The applicant also denies that the Government may justify the refusal to hand over the records as "preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".   The applicant considers that most of the information contained in the records cannot be said to be confidential since it would have been supplied and recorded even had it been known that it might subsequently be disclosed.   There is in any event no reason why persons acting in a professional capacity should not be subject to scrutiny in order to ensure that the service they provide is of a standard which a democratic society is entitled to expect.   d)       The present usefulness of the file   52.      The applicant wishes to have his file and its provision may be beneficial to him.   The applicant has contended that he was maltreated whilst in care and this has reflected upon the local authority.   The local authority apparently contends that it found "no evidence which would indicate that the officers concerned carried out their duties in other than a caring manner".   If the local authority and the Government are satisfied that they were not at fault in this particular case then why are they not prepared to allow the records to be made available to public scrutiny rather than allowing the present situation of serious allegations and concern to persist?   If such a situation is not justified, would it not be in the local authority's interest to "clear its name" or, if mistakes have been made, for those mistakes to be highlighted and the appropriate remedial steps made known in order that public confidence could be restored?   One of the letters in the papers which have been disclosed to the applicant's representatives is a letter dated 21 January 1975 (i.e. written at the time when the applicant was in care) in which somebody called Fred B. says "I have every sympathy with this case as I know that (the applicant) has engraved his name in the annals of the local authority's Social Services for a long time to come".   If there is complete disclosure matters might be resolved, whereas if disclosure does not take place there will be a shadow over the local authority and the applicant will be aggrieved.   Cogent and compelling reasons for disclosure exist notwithstanding any objections thereto.   e)       Are the contributors to the file entitled         to object to disclosure?   53.      The reasons why the contributors object to disclosure have been indicated by the respondent Government (summarised at para. 41 supra).   The following observations are made on each of the reasons given:   54.      That third parties are involved whose interests could be prejudiced.   This reason is so wide that it would prevent any records being disclosed.   Who is to decide whether the third party (i.e. not the contributor) might be prejudiced?   What interest of the third party would have to be prejudiced to justify non-disclosure? Should the third party be contacted to see whether he or she is prepared to consent to disclosure?   55.      The records which have already been disclosed make reference to third parties e.g. relatives of the applicant.   Is a distinction to be drawn between the contributor who is prepared to disclose what he has written or said about the applicant involving third parties (over which the third parties will have no control) and a contributor who puts forward the protection of third party interest for good, bad or indifferent reasons to avoid making disclosure?   56.      That the contribution is valueless out of context.   The applicant and his professional medical advisers need to know the complete picture.   If only some of the relevant information is available because the contributor of vital information refuses to allow it to be disclosed, this could be damaging to the applicant.   57.      That the contribution was regarded as subject to professional confidence at the time made and that confidence should not be breached in retrospect.   Whose "professional confidence" is being referred to?   Is it not the case that the documents compiled by "professionals" would have been compiled whatever the position relating to disclosure was?   Why should a professional be immune from having his professional judgment open to scrutiny?   58.      That solicitors acting for the contributor wish to be assured that disclosure will not take place.   Is this a reason for non-disclosure?   Would not any lawyer advise a client to refuse to disclose documents which might be damaging to that client if they had the option not to disclose documents?   Why should a contributor be allowed to prejudice the applicant by refusing disclosure without good reason?   59.      That it is not the practice to disclose reports to clients, but they are willing to disclose reports to employers if it will help to get a job or place on a training course.   Whatever the usual "practice" is it does not appear to be relevant.   The institution concerned is prepared to release documents in principle and, therefore, the facts relating to this application are such that release should take place as this will be for the benefit of the applicant.   60.      That the contributor is in ill health, now unable to recall details if cross examined and to give evidence would be harmful and stressful to the contributor if he were now required to disclose. What proceedings does this contributor fear and why?   What realistic prospect is there of proceedings now being brought in connection with these matters?   Has the contributor considered the turmoil of the applicant?   The applicant might be helped by the disclosure of the records without prejudicing the contributor whose fear of proceedings might be alleviated if appropriate.   61.      That the provider of information has the right, at his discretion, to release the information provided.   The applicant's life is in turmoil.   His plight could be assisted by disclosure.   It surely cannot be in order for somebody to refuse to disclose documents for bad or indifferent reasons.   What good reasons are there for refusing to disclose the documents?   As has been stated does, or should, confidentiality apply to professionals compiling records in the course of their work?   There is a distinction between confidential information in the sense that it is not normally disclosed, and confidential information in the sense that it would not have been obtained were it not for the guarantee of confidentiality.   In the case of professional social workers employed by the local authority they would have provided the information in any event as it was their professional duty to do so.   f)       The practice and law of other members of the Council of Europe   62.      The applicant's representatives also refer to the comparative information which the Government have obtained relating to the practice in other Member States of the Council of Europe concerning access to files on persons in care.   They contend that this reveals that Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein and Sweden all appear to allow a right of access.   The replies of Liechtenstein and France (and possibly Italy) may be regarded as indicating that in those countries access is unrestricted, regardless of whether information has been supplied in "confidence". Access to the records appears possible in other Member States (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal).   63.      The respondent Government's original position was not to allow access to any records on the broad ground that the proper functioning of the Social Services provided by local authorities would be prejudiced by such release.   Such a position does not appear to be supported by the practice of the majority of Member States of the Council of Europe.     2.       The Government   a)       Domestic law and practice   64.      Every local authority is required by Section 2 (1) of the Social Services Act 1970 to establish a Social Services Committee which will deal with all matters referred to the authority under that Act.   The local authority received the applicant into care pursuant to the relevant provision then in force, Section 1 of the Children Act 1948 ("the 1948 Act"), which provided as follows:-           "1.-(1) Where it appears to a local authority with respect         to a child in their area appearing to them to be under the         age of seventeen -           (a)      that he has neither parent nor guardian or has been         and remains abandoned by his parents or guardian or is lost;         or           (b)      that his parent or guardian are, for the time being         or permanently, prevented by reason of mental or bodily         disease or infirmity or other incapacity or any other         circumstances from providing for his proper accommodation,         maintenance and upbringing; and           (c)      in either case, that the intervention of the local         authority under this Section is necessary in the interests         of the welfare of the child, it shall be the duty of the         local authority to receive the child into their care under         this Section.           (2)      Where a local authority have received a child into         their care under this Section, it shall, subject to the         provisions of this Part of this Act, be their duty to keep         the child in their care so long as the welfare of the child         appears to them to require it and the child has not attained         the age of eighteen."     65.      The local authority discharged its duty to provide accommodation and maintenance (pursuant to Section 13 (1) of the 1948 Act) for the applicant by boarding him out to various people.   It is the practice of local authorities to keep a case record in respect of every child in care.   In respect of children boarded out local authorities are under a statutory duty to keep case records by virtue of the Boarding-Out of Children Regulations 1955 ("the 1955 Regulations").   Regulation 10 (1) of those regulations provides that:           "(1)A local authority shall compile a case record in         respect of           (a)      every child boarded out by them;           (b)      every child boarded out by another local authority         in respect of whom they perform any of the supervisory         duties under Regulation 13 of these Regulations; and           (c)      every child boarded out by a voluntary organisation         in relation to whom they perform the supervisory duties;           and the said records shall be kept up-to-date.           (2)      .................           (3)      Every case record compiled under this Regulation or         a microfilm recording thereof shall be preserved for at         least three years after the child to whom it relates has         attained the age of eighteen years or has died before         attaining that age, and such microfilm recording or, where         there is none, such case record shall be open to inspection         at all reasonable times by any person duly authorised in         that behalf by the Secretary of State."     66.      The Government refer to the case of In re D. (Infants) (1970) 1 WLR 599, where the Court of Appeal held that case records compiled and kept by a local authority pursuant to Regulation 10 of the 1955 Regulations were private, confidential and privileged documents and, since the case records should be a full and frank record, public policy also required that such documents be privileged.   The Government also make reference to the case of D. v.   National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1978) AC 171, in which Lord Edmund-Davies formulated the propositions governing the disclosure of documents which were relied upon by the judge at first instance in the present case.   67.      The Government point out that on 24 August 1983 the Department of Health and Social Security issued a circular addressed to local authorities and health authorities setting out the general principles governing the disclosure of information in social services case records to persons who were the subject of the records.   The circular also gave guidance on the policy and procedures to be fol