A Negligent Blow to Children at Risk: MAK and RK v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)
| Date | 01 November 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00829.x |
| Published date | 01 November 2010 |
| Author | Kate Greasley |
CASES
A Negligent Blow to Children at Risk: MAK and RK v
United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights)
Kate Greasley
n
In MAK and RKvUnited Kingdom the European Court found thatthe abse nceof a common law
duty of care owedto parents by doctors falsely suspecting them of their child’s abuse violated the
European Convention on Human Rights. This appears to be so even where the suspicion is a
reasonable and blameless one to make, all things considered. In such circumstances, the court’s
decision to ¢nd that a parents’Convention rights had been unjusti¢ably infringed, and to order
compensation accordingly, is likely to have the e¡ect of frustrating the e¡ective protection of
children genuinely at risk of abuse.
A CONFLICTOF DUTIES
The serious failure of health and social authorities to detect and respond to evi-
dence of child abuse in su⁄cient time has weighed heavily on the public con-
science of late. A spate of tragic (and preventable) child deaths has revealed an
ever-expanding catalogue of individual and systemic errors by public services
across thecountry, each revelation sparkinga fresh wave of outrage.
1
An especially
high pro¢le and disturbing recent case was the death of ‘Baby P’, a seventeen-
month old boy who died in 2007 as a result of severe physical abuse while in the
care of his mother and her boyfriend, and whose death Haringey social services
had failed to act to prevent despite having seen the boyon several occasions dur-
ing a period in which he sustained multiple injuries.
2
Similarly, in March of this
year, a case review into the death of Ti¡any Sellman Burdge, a babygirl who was
killed by her father, found that public authorities in Kent had missed two clear
opportunitie s to recognise the gravity of the risks posed when concerns raised
by the girl’s grandparents went largely ignored by healthworkers.
3
With such serious carelessness airborne in the child protection services, the
situation of children at risk of abuse in the United Kingdom seems precarious
n
New College, Oxford.
1One particularly damning o⁄cial report into the child protection s ervices of Birmingham found
that its social services were‘not ¢t for its purpose’after eight children known to social services died
of abuse and neglect within the space of four years,leadi ngto the sacki ngof si x social workers.The
report, entitled ‘Who Cares?’ can be found on the Birmingham City Council’s website: http://
www.birmingham.gov.uk/scrutiny (last visited 19 August 2010).
2See Care Quality Commission,‘Reviewof the Involvementand Action Taken byHealth Bodies i n
Relationto the Case of Baby P’(May 2009) at http://www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Baby_Peter_
report_FINAL_12_May_09_(2).pdf (last vis ited 16August 2010).
3See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7068643.ece(last visited 14August 2010).The
o⁄cial case review has yetto be released into the public sphere.
r2010The Author.The Modern Law Review r2010The Modern Law Review Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2010)73(6) 1026^1047
To continue reading
Request your trial