CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 2 avril 1993

.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. 19582/92                       by the M. 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 M. family against the United Kingdom and registered on 4 March 1992 under file No. 19582/92;         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 1946 and 1945 respectively.   They are resident in South Ronaldsay, Orkney.   They have, inter alia, two children, S. (the third applicant) born on 5 January 1976, and J. (the fourth applicant) born on 3 September 1979.   They are all British citizens.         The applicants 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 first and second applicants came to live in Orkney in 1984. They are practising Quakers.         This is the last 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 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 27 February 1991 Mr. and Mrs. M. 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 three social workers.   Mr. and Mrs. M. were told that the social workers were there to remove the children as they had reason to believe that the children were at risk and had been subjected to "lewd and libidinous practices" (an archaic Scottish legal expression, descriptive of sexual offences, which would not generally be understood by non-lawyers).   One of the social workers said that they would wake the children.   Mrs. M. ran ahead of them to wake the children herself.   The children got up and dressed.   A social worker insisted on being present while they dressed, despite S.'s request for privacy.   Mrs. M. told the children that she and Mr. M. were being accused of "sexy goings-on".   She was told by a social worker to be quiet.   Mr. M. was handed a copy of each of the Place of Safety Orders referring to S. and J.   No attempt was made to explain the nature of implications of such an order.   It was noted that Mr. and Mrs. M. "appeared shocked".         Mrs. M. brought the children downstairs from their bedrooms.   The children were visibly upset.   Mrs. M. asked to be allowed to give the children some breakfast.   This was not allowed.   Mr. M. asked the police officer in charge if the children could take a book or a teddy bear or a personal stereo.   The police officer said that that was not allowed.   The children were then taken away from the house by the social workers.   No attempt was made to reassure Mr. and Mrs. M., or the children, as to the purpose, timescale or procedure involved in their removal or the arrangements thereafter.           Mr. and Mrs. M. thereafter contacted Mr. Paul Lee, the Director of Social Work, and asked him what investigations had been made prior to the uplift of the children.   He refused to discuss the matter with them.   Mr. and Mrs. M. invited him to come and see them, but he refused to do so. Subsequently, the M. family on a number of occasions requested Mr. Lee and other social workers to visit them at home.   They also asked them to visit the place where the abuse was supposed to have occurred (which even the police did not do), which would have revealed how implausible the allegations were.   They also invited the RSSPCC to speak to the parents.   All these requests met with negative responses.         Mr. and Mrs. M. had learned informally that S. was being held in an institution likely to be some sort of residential establishment for problem children (as was in fact the case).   They were extremely apprehensive as to S.'s well-being in such an establishment.   They were also concerned about S.'s schooling, especially as he was due to sit important national examinations in April 1991.         By letter dated 15 March 1991, the M. family's solicitor complained to Mr. Lee that one of S.'s teachers had been prevented from forwarding school work to him.   It was pointed out that the work was essential to his national assessment and thus to his prospects of obtaining a place at university.   A letter to similar effect, from the teacher concerned, was enclosed.   Confirmation was requested that there would be no further bar to work being passed to and from his teachers.         By letter dated 22 March,   Mr. Lee responded to the request for S.'s teaching material to be forwarded to him, and stated that there was no bar on such material being sent to him. Thereafter teaching materials were forwarded for transmission to S.   None in fact reached him until 1 April 1991.     The proceedings before the Children's Hearings and the Sheriff         See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 3-7. The facts insofar as they are different are as follows:         At the Children's Hearings on 5 March 1991 involving the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. M. were accompanied by Mr. Targowsksi and by a family friend, Christine Davis, the Chairman (at that time, the Chairman-elect) of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.   The Assistant Reporter read out the grounds of referral.   Mr. and Mrs. M. were asked whether they accepted the grounds of referral.   They stated that they did not.   Mr. M. objected to the children not being present and asked for a report on the children's views on the grounds of referral.   He was told that no such report was available.   No report of any description was produced or referred to at the Hearing.   Mr. and Mrs. M. disputed the need to detain the children and requested access to them.   They were told by Mr. Sloan, the Acting Reporter, that that would not be allowed. They also asked whether the children could not be cared for by one or other of the families referred to in the letter dated 3 March 1991 sent to Mr. Sloan by H. and K., the adult children of the family.   It did not appear that the letter had been placed before the Hearing, although Mr. Sloan admitted that he had received it.               Mrs. M. repeatedly broke down during the Hearings and was consoled by Christine Davis.   Mrs. Davis was threatened by Mr. Sloan with ejection from the Hearing, under Rule 11(3) of the 1986 Rules, on the ground that her behaviour in consoling Mrs. M. was disruptive.         On 18 March 1991 the curator appointed to S. and J. on 6 March 1991 visited Orkney.   He spent most of the day at the Social Work Department.   He spent about 15 minutes with Mrs. M.   He had not seen the children.         At the Hearings on 25 March 1991 concerned with the M. children, Mr. and Mrs. M. were accompanied by their solicitor and by their counsel, who raised a number of matters.   In particular he submitted that the situation had changed now that the results of the medical examinations were known.   As there was no evidence of abuse of any of the children, they should be returned.   If S. and J. were to be kept in a "place of safety" it should be the boarding school selected by their parents.   Both solicitor and counsel were threatened with ejection under Rule 11 (3) of the 1986 Rules and counsel in particular was ordered not to make submissions, otherwise he would be ejected.     Relevant domestic law and practice         See B., Application No. 19579/92, p.7.       COMPLAINTS         See B., Application No. 19579/92, pp. 7-9.       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)