CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 mai 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE41EF361 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD212800C { width:224.63pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s91DE8A0A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200% } .sF4EFF24F { border-spacing:1.1pt } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sC0A1A6CD { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s81534B18 { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2E2EB3D2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCAA154B1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s876B3D1A { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial } .s4247897A { width:15.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION Application nos. 19064/07, 31588/09 and 38619/09 by Wendy ALLCOCK and Others, Susan ADDISON and Others and   Annita   MACE and Timothy MADZIWA against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates between 30 April 2007 and 17 September 2007, on 9 June 2009 and on 14 July 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants are 107 individuals whose names are listed in Annex 1 to this decision. They are represented before the Court by Leigh Day & Co., a firm of solicitors based in London. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) established the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (“POVA”) list. Inclusion on the POVA list effectively precluded a person from working as a care worker with vulnerable adults. The applicants' names were all first included on the POVA list provisionally on dates between 2004 and 2009 by the Secretary of State. Following provisional listing, it was for the Secretary of State, upon receipt of observations, to decide whether to confirm their names on the list or to remove them. The   period for which their names remained provisionally on the list varied from a few months to years. The majority of the applicants subsequently had their names removed from the POVA list. 4.     Three possibilities existed to challenge provisional inclusion in the POVA list. First, an individual could make representations to the Secretary of State to seek his removal from the list. Second, after provisional listing for nine months, an individual could apply to the Care Standards Tribunal to have his inclusion in the list determined by the Tribunal instead of the Secretary of State, provided that he obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so. Finally, an individual could seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision provisionally to include his name in the POVA list or to refuse to remove his name from the list. 5.     Four of the applicants applied for judicial review with the support of the Royal College of Nursing: Ms Wright, whose appeal against her inclusion in the list to the Care Standards Tribunal was stayed pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings; and Mr Jummun, Ms Quinn and Ms Gambier, whose names had been removed from the POVA list following the Secretary of State's decision not to confirm their listing. They were representative applications, in the sense that there were other follow-up cases brought by other members of the Royal College of Nursing . 6.     On 16 November 2006 Mr Justice Stanley Burnton in the High Court found the provisions of Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be incompatible with the rights of care workers under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. He accordingly made a declaration of incompatibility. 7.     The Secretary of State appealed. On 24 October 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal. As to the applicability of Article 6, Lord Justice Dyson, giving the opinion for the majority, noted: “ 86. In my view, the judge was right to conclude that a decision to include a worker in the POVA list engages article 6 in all cases. The consequences of being provisionally included in the POVA list can be seriously detrimental for the care worker. Whilst on the list, he or she may not be offered employment in a relevant care position and if employed in such a position, his or her employment is not even suspended, still less suspended on pay: it is terminated immediately. There is no requirement that, if at the stage of final determination, the care worker is removed from the list, he or she must be offered the previous employment. In my judgment, the provisional inclusion of a care worker in the list can have a clear and decisive effect on the worker ... the decision to include in the list is potentially one of a drastic character which may cause irreversible prejudice to the worker. ” 8.     As to whether a breach of Article 6 § 1 arose, he found: “101. But the fact that, as interpreted and applied by the Secretary of State, the CSA does not provide that the care worker should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision is made to provisionally include him or her in the POVA list is an aspect of procedure and not a matter of substance. The question that arises is whether this apparent breach of article 6(1) at the first stage of the process is made good by the process when viewed as a whole. Mr Sales [for the Secretary of State] points to the following features of the process which, he submits, make good the absence of an opportunity for the care worker to make representations before the decision to include him or her in the list is made. First, there is the opportunity to apply to the Secretary of State at any time to remove the worker from the list under section 81(3). Secondly, there is the right to seek judicial review at any time of the original decision to include the worker in the list and a refusal to remove the worker from the list. Thirdly, there is the right of appeal which can be exercised after 9   months. ... 106. In my view, there are two reasons why the failure to afford the worker the opportunity to make representations before being included in the POVA list is a breach of article 6 which cannot be cured by any of the three means suggested by Mr   Sales. First, the denial of the right to make representations is not a mere formal or technical breach. It is a denial of one of the fundamental elements of the right to a fair determination of a person's civil rights, namely the right to be heard. And the denial is total. The worker is not given an opportunity even to make the briefest of comments. Judicial review does not afford full jurisdiction, since it cannot make good the consequences of the denial of the opportunity to make representations at the earlier stage. 107. Secondly, none of the three means suggested by Mr Sales can make good the serious detriment suffered by the care worker as a result of being included in the POVA list. Section 81(3) does afford the worker a remedy of sorts. In some cases, he or she will be able to make a successful application under section 81(3) within a short time of being included in the list. But even in such cases, there is the potential for serious and irreversible prejudice to the worker by being included in the list in the first place. The former employer may offer to restore the care worker to his or her employment, but that is unlikely where the employer dismissed, suspended or provisionally transferred the worker on the grounds of misconduct. As for judicial review, proceedings are likely to take some time, and even if successful are unlikely to result in the restoration of the worker to his or her former employment. The same applies in relation to an appeal to the tribunal which cannot be determined until the worker has been in the list for 9 months. It is the (often irreversible) detrimental effect of the inclusion in the list that makes the breach of article 6 at the first stage of the process incurable by any of the means suggested by Mr Sales.” 9.     However, he considered that the terms of the legislation could be read down pursuant to section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) to allow an Article 6-compatible interpretation of the relevant procedures. He concluded that the legislative provisions regarding provisional listing should be interpreted as requiring the Secretary of State to give workers the right to make representations before he made a decision provisionally to include their names in the POVA list, unless he reasonably considered that the resultant delay would place a vulnerable adult at risk of harm . In light of Dyson LJ's conclusions under Article 6 § 1, he considered it unnecessary to deal with the Article 8 issue. 10.     The applicants appealed. On 21 January 2009 the House of Lords unanimously found the Part VII provisions to be incompatible with the Convention and made a declaration of incompatibility. Baroness Hale of Richmond, with whom their Lordships agreed, considered the operation of the scheme is some detail, noting the time taken between the provisional inclusion of a person's name in the POVA list and the eventual confirmation or removal of the name by the Secretary of State. 11.     On the Article 6 § 1 issue, Baroness Hale considered that provisional listing on the POVA list would, in many cases, amount to a determination of a civil right, thus rendering the Article applicable, noting: “22. ... The scheme allows for a temporary suspension or transfer to a non-care position. However, it is unlikely that an employer will take this option. They will have to employ another person to do the work which the listed person was employed to do. The reality is that that particular job will be lost to the listed person for good. Of   course, some listed people will no longer be employed in care positions and so will not lose their existing jobs. Much was made on behalf of the Secretary of State of the wide range of jobs, even within the care sector, which remained open to a listed person, including any job in an independent or NHS hospital. But, once again, the reality is that a listed person is most unlikely to be able to obtain such a job or to keep it if she does not disclose that she has been listed. The main answer to this point, however, is that the scheme cannot assume that article 6(1) will never apply to provisional listing. There will undoubtedly be some cases, perhaps the majority, where it does apply ... [O]ur national law has to devise a scheme which will be generally applicable before the particular impact of the decision is known.” 12.     She continued: “26. My Lords, the scheme appears premised on the assumption that permanently to ban a person from a wide variety of care positions does require a full merits hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. That premise is, in my view, correct. The issue is what should be done on the way to that decision. How is a proper balance to be struck between the need to protect the vulnerable adults, who may be at risk from a care worker who has been referred to the Secretary of State, and the need to protect the care worker from suffering irreversible damage to her civil rights, as a result of allegations which later turn out to be unfounded, even frivolous or malicious, or at the very least blown up out of all proportion? ... 27. No-one can be in any doubt of the need for some scheme such as this to protect children and vulnerable adults from being harmed by the people who regularly come into contact with them in the course of work. The most practicable way of providing such a scheme may well be to have a list of banned individuals which is maintained administratively and where the initial decisions are made by officials ... However, in my view, Dyson LJ was entirely correct in his conclusion that the scheme as enacted in the Care Standards Act 2000 does not comply with article 6(1), for the reasons he gave. The process does not begin fairly, by offering the care worker an opportunity to answer the allegations made against her, before imposing upon her possibly irreparable damage to her employment or prospects of employment.” 13.     However, she disagreed with Dyson LJ that the provisions could be read down so as to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, noting: “29. ... The care worker suffers possibly irreparable damage without being heard whatever the nature of the allegations made against her. The care worker may have a good answer to the allegations no matter how serious they are. There may well be cases where the need to protect the vulnerable is so urgent that an 'ex parte' procedure can be justified. But one would then expect there to be a swift method of hearing both sides of the story and doing so before irreparable damage was done ... The problem, it seems to me, stems from the draconian effect of provisional listing, coupled with the inevitable delay before a full merits hearing can be obtained. That cannot be cured by offering some of the care workers an opportunity to make representations in advance, while denying that opportunity to other workers who may have been just as unfairly treated by their former employers ...” 14.     As to the Article 8 issue, Baroness Hale indicated: “36. For my part, I am inclined to take the same view of whether article 8 is engaged as to whether article 6 is engaged. There will be some people for whom the impact upon personal relationships is so great as to constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life and others for whom it may not. The scope of the ban is very wide ... The ban is also likely to have an effect in practice going beyond its effect in law. Even though the lists are not made public, the fact is likely to get about and the stigma will be considerable. The scheme must therefore be devised in such a way as to prevent possible breaches of the article 8 rights. 37. Mr Spencer [for the claimants] does not, of course, argue that such interference will never be justifiable under article 8(2). The point is that the procedures must be fair in the light of the importance of the interests at stake. I would agree that the low threshold for provisional listing adds to the risk of arbitrary and unjustified interferences and thus contributes to the overall unfairness of the scheme.” 15.     She concluded that the procedure for provisional listing did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 and that the solution favoured by the Court of Appeal did not cure the problem. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1. The Care Standards Act 2000 16.     As noted above, the POVA list was established by Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 (“CSA”). The relevant provisions in Part VII of the CSA were repealed on 12 October 2009 , subject to certain saving provisions, and replaced by a scheme established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. a. Procedure for inclusion in the POVA list 17.     Section 81(1) of the CSA required the Secretary of State to keep a list of individuals who were considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, known as the POVA list. Pursuant to section 81(2), an individual was not to be included in the POVA list except in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CSA. Section 81(3) provided: “The Secretary of State may at any time remove an individual from the list if he is satisfied that the individual should not have been included in it.” 18.     Section 82 dealt with the referral of individuals to the Secretary of State for potential inclusion in the POVA list. It provided: “A person who provides care for vulnerable adults (the provider) shall refer a care worker to the Secretary of State if there is fulfilled– (a) any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2); or (b) the condition mentioned in subsection (3).” 19.     The section 82(2) conditions were: “(a) that the provider has dismissed the worker on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult; (b) that the worker has resigned, retired or been made redundant in circumstances such that the provider would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds if he had not resigned, retired or been made redundant; (c) that the provider has, on such grounds, transferred the worker to a position which is not a care position; (d) that the provider has, on such grounds, suspended the worker or provisionally transferred him to a position which is not a care position but has not yet decided whether to dismiss him or to confirm the transfer.” 20.     The section 82(3) condition was that: “(a) in circumstances not falling within subsection (2), the provider has dismissed the worker, he has resigned or retired or the provider has transferred him to a position which is not a care position; (b) information not available to the provider at the time of the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer has since become available; and (c) the provider has formed the opinion that, if that information had been available at that time and if (where applicable) the worker had not resigned or retired, the provider would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a).” 21.     Section 82(4) set out the scope of the Secretary of State's powers upon receipt of a reference and provided: “If it appears from the information submitted with a reference under subsection (1) that it may be appropriate for the worker to be included in the list kept under section 81, the Secretary of State shall (a) determine the reference in accordance with subsections (5) to (7); and (b) pending that determination, provisionally include the worker in the list.” 22.     Pursuant to section 82(5), the Secretary of State was required to invite observations from the care worker and the provider on the information submitted with the reference. Section 82(6) provided: “Where (a) the Secretary of State has considered the information submitted with the reference, any observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant; and (b) in the case of a reference under subsection (2)(d), the provider has dismissed the worker or, as the case may be, has confirmed his transfer on such grounds as are there mentioned, the Secretary of State shall confirm the worker's inclusion in the list if subsection (7) applies; otherwise he shall remove him from the list.” 23.     Section 82(7) applied if the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the provider reasonably considered the worker to be guilty of misconduct, whether or not in the course of his employment, which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult; and that the worker was unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. 24.     Section 83 imposed on employment agencies and employment businesses a duty to refer workers to the Secretary of State in similar circumstances as those applicable at the time to providers. b. Consequences of inclusion in the POVA list 25.     As to the consequences of inclusion in the POVA list, section 89(1) provided: “Where a person who provides care to vulnerable adults proposes to offer an individual employment in a care position that person– (a) shall ascertain whether the individual is included in the list kept under section 81; and (b) if he is included in that list, shall not offer him employment in such a position.” 26.     Section 89(2) provided: “Where a person who provides care to vulnerable adults discovers that an individual employed by him in a care position is included in that list, he shall cease to employ him in a care position. For the purposes of this subsection an individual is not employed in a care position if he has been suspended or provisionally transferred to a position which is not a care position.” 27.     Finally, section 89(5) made it an offence for an individual who was included otherwise than provisionally in the POVA list to knowingly apply for, offer to do, accept or do any work in a care position. c. Challenges to inclusion in the POVA list 28.     Section 86 set out the possibility of an appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal. Section 86(1) provided: “An individual who is included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list kept by the Secretary of State under section 81 may appeal to the Tribunal against (a) the decision to include him in the list; or (b) with the leave of the Tribunal, any decision of the Secretary of State not to remove him from the list under section 81(3).” 29.     Section 86(2) permitted an individual who had been provisionally included in the POVA list for a period of more than nine months to have the issue of his inclusion in the list determined by the Tribunal instead of the Secretary of State, provided that he obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so. 30.     Pursuant to section 86(3), if on an appeal or determination under section 86 the Tribunal was not satisfied that the individual was guilty of misconduct, whether or not in the course of his duties, which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult or that the individual was unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, the Tribunal was required to allow the appeal or determine the issue in the individual's favour and, in either case, to direct his removal from the POVA list. If the Tribunal was satisfied that both conditions were met, it was obliged to dismiss the appeal or direct the individual's inclusion in the POVA list. 2. The Human Rights Act 1998 31.     Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Human Rights Act”) provides as follows: “(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. (2) This section– (a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted; ...” 32.     Section 4 of the Act provides: “(1)     Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right. (2)     If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility. ...” 33.     Finally, section 6(1) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. Section 6(2) clarifies that: “Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if– (a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or (b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.” COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention about the procedure for the provisional listing of their names in the POVA list. They also complain under Article 13 that they were denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaints. THE LAW I. THE STRIKING-OUT OF THE COMPLAINTS OF THIRTY-ONE APPLICANTS 34.     On 5 August 2009 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that one applicant (application no. 31588/09) no longer wished to participate in the application. They therefore requested that his name be withdrawn from the case and that no further action be taken on his behalf. 35.     On 11 April 2011 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that settlements had been reached with the Government in respect of twenty-four applicants (see list in Annex 2). They enclosed signed forms from each of the twenty-four applicants confirming their consent to the withdrawal of their claims on the grounds that a settlement had been achieved. 36.     On 27 April 2001 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that six further applicants (application nos. 19064/07 and 31588/09) no longer wished to proceed with their applications. They   therefore requested that their names be withdrawn from the case. 37.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the complaints of the thirty-one applicants identified above, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in the case of the seven applicants who requested that their names be withdrawn and within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) in respect of the other twenty-four applicants. 38.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the complaints of the thirty-one applicants out of the list. II. THE REMAINING SEVENTY-SIX APPLICANTS 39.     The Court considers that the complaints of the remaining seventy-six applicants raise complex issues of fact and law and that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the complaints at this stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Article 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to request the observations of the respondent Government on the admissibility of the complaints. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaints of the thirty-one applicants identified in Annex 2; Decides to adjourn the examination of the remaining seventy-six applicants' complaints; Decides ,   pursuant to Article 29 § 1   of the   Convention in fine , to examine   separately the   issue of admissibility. Lawrence Early   Lech Garlicki   Registrar   President   ANNEX 1 Application no. Name of applicant Nationality Year of birth 19064/07 Godwin Agbo British 1953 19064/07 Mary Akuoko-Buabeng Ghanaian 1951 19064/07 Parveen Alishah British 1967 19064/07 Wendy Allcock British 1963 19064/07 Sajina Arulappan Indian 1976 19064/07 Olawunmi Bakare British 1951 19064/07 Maria Berry British 1935 19064/07 Roger Berryman British 1961 19064/07 Riffat Bhatti Pakistani 1965 19064/07 Tricia Boyce British 1976 19064/07 Dawn Campy British 1965 19064/07 Rhodora Carranza British 1966 19064/07 Yvonne Cemane South African 1953 19064/07 Zaibunnisa Channa Pakistani 1971 19064/07 Barbara Chapman-Smith British 1950 19064/07 Alice Cheang British 1953 19064/07 Evangelista Chikono Zimbabwean 1969 19064/07 Kim Clarke British 1961 19064/07 Peter Davies British 1957 19064/07 Susan Mary Dedman British 1954 19064/07 Dianne Dixon British 1964 19064/07 Janet Foster British 1945 19064/07 Catherine Mary Furniss British 1966 19064/07 Barbara Janet Gambier British 1943 19064/07 Josephine Ghunney Ghanaian 1965 19064/07 Mercy Grabet South African 1937 19064/07 Richard Christopher Grun Dutch 1946 19064/07 Jacqueline Hodgson British 1967 19064/07 Kim Holland British 1966 19064/07 Patience Grace Amen Jesuorobo British 1961 19064/07 Anju John Indian 1980 19064/07 Neil Johnson British 1957 19064/07 Prakash Joseph Indian 1973 19064/07 Sini Joyce British 1976 19064/07 Khemraj Jummun British 1948 19064/07 Yuri Kazlouski Belarusian 1981 19064/07 Mary Ann Kerry British 1949 19064/07 Nicola Koster British 1968 19064/07 Weng Kheong Lim Malaysian 1955 19064/07 Annah Madamombe Zimbabwean 1966 19064/07 George Marsh British 1942 19064/07 Angus Simon McDonald British 1965 19064/07 John Merrit British 1976 19064/07 Adam James Millis British 1976 19064/07 Temakazi Moyana South African 1953 19064/07 Katarzyna Namyslaw Polish 1976 19064/07 Mariatu Nuni Sierra Leonean 1951 19064/07 Lucy Olaniya Nigerian 1960 19064/07 Joshua Oni Nigerian 1957 19064/07 Tina Orsich British 1969 19064/07 Mary Quinn British 1947 19064/07 Pran Rampersad British 1953 19064/07 Dhanwantee Rampersad British 1963 19064/07 Irene Taylor British 1952 19064/07 Philip Thompson British 1963 19064/07 Shelvi Varkey British 1974 19064/07 Anne Wallace British 1947 19064/07 Philip Weeks British 1945 19064/07 June Wright British 1949 19064/07 Samina Wright British 1967 31588/09 Susan Addison British 1953 31588/09 Mary Afolabi Nigerian                                           1945 31588/09 John Ajewole Nigerian                                           1954 31588/09 Oluwatoyin Abeni Amao Nigerian                                           1962 31588/09 Audrey Mary Barnfield British                               1953 31588/09 Carol Joan Burnett British                               1944 31588/09 Alison Butterworth British                             1957 31588/09 Stuart Byron British                               1983 31588/09 Coleen Carter British                               1954 31588/09 Margaret Corser British                               1958 31588/09 Valerie Ann Davies British                               1945 31588/09 Enda Evans British                               Not known 31588/09 Bridget Evington British                               1951 31588/09 Nigel Alan Fear British                               1952 31588/09 Elaine Fitzgerald British                               1959 31588/09 David Fletcher British                               1978 31588/09 Susan Phyllis Greening British                               1959 31588/09 Elizabeth Gulzaman Pakistani                                           1966 31588/09 Debbie Hall British                               1965 31588/09 Dawn Harris British                               1955 31588/09 Denise Ann Holroyd British                               1948 31588/09 Kenneth Francis Holroyd British                               1940 31588/09 Victoria Anne Horsley British                               1974 31588/09 Clarister Maureen Javor British                               1961 31588/09 Shibu Joseph British                                         1975 31588/09 Shaun Joyce British                               1980 31588/09 Nikolinka Kamberova Bulgarian                                         1961 31588/09 Doreen Mahlunge Zimbabwean                                         1947 31588/09 Maureen Malone British                               1942 31588/09 Gertrude Masabo Zambian                                       1956 31588/09 Rebecca Mweseli Kenyan                           1965 31588/09 Sarah Newark British                               1980 31588/09 Flavia Ngcobo South African 1959 31588/09 Joan Nhachi Zimbabwean                               1966 31588/09 Sarah Celia Reilly British                               1966 31588/09 Debra Richards British                               1963 31588/09 Simon Rutter British                               1967 31588/09 Marie Jacqueline Seeborun Mauritian                           1951 31588/09 Hasifa Segujja Ugandan                                       1966 31588/09 Maureen Priscilla Sheikh British                               1949 31588/09 Neil Paul Taylor British                               1966 31588/09 Emily Charlotte Tutton British                               1972 31588/09 Bindu Vanalloor Punushothaman Pillai Indian                                         1976 31588/09 Caroline Ann Wade British                               1957 31588/09 Linda Watkins British                               1950 38619/09 Annita Mace British Not known 38619/09 Timothy Madziwa Not known Not known   ANNEX 2   Cases in which settlement reached:   Mary Akuoko-Buabeng Parveen Alishah Wendy Allcock Sajina Arulappan Olawunmi Bakare Roger Berryman Riffat Bhatti Tricia Boyce Rhodora Carranza Zaibunnisa Channa Evangelista Chikono Susan Mary Dedman Barbara Janet Gambier Richard Christopher Grun Patience Grace Amen Jesuorobo Anju John Prakash Joseph Sini Joyce Khemraj Jummun Katarzyna Namyslaw Mary Quinn Irene Taylor June Wright Marie Jacqueline Seeborun       Cases in which applicants requested withdrawal:   Nigel Alan Fear Yvonne Cemane Barbara Chapman-Smith Joshua Oni Susan Addison Elizabeth Gulzaman Gertrude Masabo