Letter from the Chair of the Committee
to Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP, Minister of State for Children, Young
People and Families, Department for Children, Schools and Families,
dated 21 July 2009
RK AND AK V
UNITED KINGDOM
(APP NO
38000(1)/05, 30 SEPTEMBER
2008)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is continuing
its practice of reviewing the implementation of judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finding the UK to be in
breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
I am writing to inquire about the Government's
response to the judgment in RK and AK v United Kingdom. In RK
and AK, the applicants complained that they did not have an effective
remedy for their complaints relating to the taking into care of
their child for child protection concerns arising from the child's
injury. Their child was subsequently discovered to have brittle
bone disease and was returned to the parents. The events occurred
before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)
and the applicants were therefore unable to bring a claim for
breach of Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for family
life). The Court held that there had been a violation of Article
13:
"The Court considers that the applicants
should have had available to them a means of claiming that the
local authority's handling of the procedures was responsible for
any damage which they suffered and obtaining compensation for
that damage. Such redress was not available at the relevant time.
Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 13 of
the Convention." (para. 45)
I would be grateful for your response to the
following questions:
1. How many current cases is the Government aware
of which involve allegations of negligence and/or breaches of
the Convention which predate the coming into force of the HRA?
Of those, how many are before (a) the Court of Appeal, (b) the
House of Lords and (c) the European Court of Human Rights?
2. In relation to the cases mentioned in Question
1 above, is the Government taking steps to adequately settle
those claims where there is a high likelihood of a finding of
a breach of Article 13 by the ECtHR, in order to avoid the
cost and inconvenience to both parties of pursuing a case to Strasbourg?
If not, why not?
3. Please provide details of the steps that the
Government has taken to ensure that the implications of this judgment
for local authorities and child protection agencies are widely
known. For example, has the Government written to local authorities,
or amended guidance, circulars or training to reflect the judgment?
4. Has the Government advised local authorities
and their lawyers not to seek strike outs in similar cases to
RK and AK? If not, why not?
In addition, please provide us with copies of
the Government's submissions to the Committee of Ministers and
ensure that we continue to be updated as further information is
provided.
21 July 2009
|