When RK, a nine year old girl was taken to hospital, with bruises, the paediatrician wrongly suspecting sexual abuse, took blood samples and intimate photographs in the absence of the parents and without their consent.
Held: The doctor had acted in a way to infringe the child and the parent’s human rights in acting without parental consent. The child’s condition was not critical, and she was not in any pain or discomfort. Her condition was not deteriorating so as to require the intervention before her mother’s arrival. The Court could find no justification for taking the blood sample and intimate photographs against the express wishes of both parents, and while she was alone in the hospital.
The doctor’s failure to seek a dermatological diagnosis in accordance with recommendation several days additional delay and distress.
The applicant was not prevented from raising a point at the ECHR which could have been raised in the national court but had not been. The parents had been given no remedy for the failings of the doctors, and damages were awarded accordingly.
As to the withdrawal of Legal Aid, where it results in a restriction on the right of access to court, it will only be compatible with Article 6 – 1 if it is both pursuant to a legitimate aim and proportionate to that aim. The principle question for the Court is whether the restriction was legitimate and proportionate.
L Garlicki, President, and Judges Sir Nicolas Bratza, G. Bonello, L. Mijovic, J. Sikuta, M. Poalelungi and N. Vucinic
45901/05,  ECHR 363, 40146/06, 28 BHRC 762, (2010) 51 EHRR 14,  2 FLR 451, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 241,  Fam Law 582
European Convention on Human Rights 8 3, Family Reform Act 1969 8, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Appeal from – JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
Cited – Martin v Legal Services Commission Admn 27-Jul-2007
The claimant challenged by judicial review the discharge of a legal aid certificate in educational negligence proceedings.
Held: A final decision to revoke a legal aid certificate may be challenged by judicial review. . .
Cited – Tyrer v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Apr-1978
Three strokes with a birch constituted degrading punishment for a 15-year-old boy, which violated article 3 having regard to the particular circumstances in which it was administered.
Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – Airey v Ireland ECHR 9-Oct-1979
Family law proceedings such as judicial separation do give rise to civil rights. In complex cases article 6 might require some provision for legal assistance, the precise form being a matter for the member state. The Court reiterated the importance . .
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
Cited – RK and AK v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Oct-2005
The applicants’ young child had been suspected of being the victim of physical abuse. After court proceedings the child was removed. In later proceedings and after being placed with an aunt, she was diagnosed as having brittle bone disease. In the . .
Cited – Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany ECHR 12-Jul-2001
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 14 . .
Cited – Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
Cited – Garcia Manibardo v Spain ECHR 15-Feb-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Limitations on a citizen’s right of access to the . .
Cited – Edificaciones March Gallego S A v Spain ECHR 19-Feb-1998
The right of access to the courts is not an absolute one,and may be properly subject to limitations. . .
Cited – Gasus Dosier-Und Fodertechnik Gmbh v The Netherlands ECHR 23-Feb-1995
Even where an interference in property rights involved the complete loss of a person’s economic interest in an asset for the benefit of the State, an absence of compensation might still be compatible with Article 1. ‘The Court recalls that the . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Del Sol v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
Cited – TP And KM v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-May-2001
The Grand Chamber found a violation of Articles 8 and 13 and awarded each applicant GBP 10,000 in respect of a separation which lasted a year. Article 8 imposes positive obligations of disclosure on a local authority involved in care proceedings: . .
Cited – Glass v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2004
The applicant’s adult son was disabled. There was a disagreement with the hospital about his care. The hospital considered that to alleviate his distress, he should not be resuscitated. The family wanted to take him home, fearing euthanasia. The . .
Cited – YF v Turkey ECHR 22-Jul-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Children, Health Professions, Torts – Other
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.403497