The applicant’s father had been present on Christmas Island during British nuclear tests. She was diagnosed with leukaemia. She claimed the UK had been should have warned her parents of the risks associated with exposure to radiation and monitored her health.
Held: The applicant had not proved that her father had actually been exposed to radiation, but nevertheless considered the position as if he had been. The issue was ‘whether, given the circumstances of the case, the State did all that could have been required of it to prevent the applicant’s life from being avoidably put at risk’ as to which ‘the State could only have been required of its own motion to take these steps [i e provide advice to her parents and monitor her health] in relation to the applicant if it had appeared likely at that time that any such exposure of her father to radiation might have engendered a real risk to her health.’
It was not established that: ‘given the information available to the State at the relevant time concerning the likelihood of the applicant’s father having been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and of this having created a risk to her health, it could have been expected to act of its own motion to notify her parents of these matters or to take any other special action in relation to her.’
Article 2 imposed on the authorities a general obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the lives of those within their jurisdiction. But the applicant was asserting that they had been obliged, of their own motion, to do something specific in respect of her, viz to warn her parents and monitor her health. She was one of millions of people within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Resources are finite. The authorities could not have been expected to monitor the health of each and every individual. How to choose? The Court held that the authorities would have been under this special obligation, of their own motion to advise the applicant’s parents and to monitor her health, if it had appeared likely that any exposure of her father to radiation might have engendered ‘a real risk’ to her health. The trigger for the obligation would have been the authorities’ awareness of the ‘real risk’. On the facts, the Court held that the obligation had not been triggered in respect of the applicant.
Citations:
[1998] ECHR 108, (1998) 27 EHRR 212, [1998] HRCD 628, 4 BHRC 447
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 2
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (MIND intervening) HL 10-Dec-2008
The deceased had committed suicide on escaping from a mental hospital. The Trust appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim that that they had been negligent in having inadequate security.
Held: The Trust’s appeal failed. The fact that . .
Cited – Powell v United Kingdom ECHR 4-May-2000
A ten-year old boy had died from Addison’s disease. No inquest took place, because the coroner decided that the boy had died of natural causes. The parents, who were also affected by the events, had accepted compensation from the local health . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Trust CA 21-Jun-2010
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide after being given home leave on a secure ward by the respondent mental hospital. A claim in negligence had been settled, but the parents now appealed refusal of their claim that the hospital had failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276364