A v United Kingdom
| Judgment Date | 23 September 1998 |
Child – Inhuman or degrading treatment – Chastisement – Beating of child by stepfather – Stepfather charged with but acquitted of assault – Whether acquittal constituting failure by state to protect applicant from inhuman or degrading treatment – Offences against the Person Act 1861, s 47 – Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art 3.
A, who was nine years’ old, was beaten on more than one occasion by his stepfather with a garden cane, which was applied with considerable force. His stepfather was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. At his trial the stepfather conceded that he had caned A on a number of occasions but raised the defence of reasonable chastisement, contending that such punishment had been necessary and reasonable since A was a difficult boy who did not respond to parental or school discipline. The jury found by a majority verdict that the stepfather was not guilty of the assault charge. A subsequently complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that the state had failed to protect him from ill-treatment by his stepfather, in violation of art 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of art 3 (unanimously) and referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Held – Article 3 required contracting states to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction were not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, were entitled to state protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity. In order to fall within the scope of art 3, ill-treatment had to reach a minimum level of severity taking into account the nature and context of the treatment, its duration and mental effects and in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. Under English law, on a charge of assault on a child, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the assault went beyond reasonable chastisement. In the instant case, although the beating of the nine-year-old A by his stepfather reached the necessary level of severity to be prohibited by art 3, the jury acquitted the stepfather. Accordingly, the law had not provided A with adequate protection against ill-treatment contrary to art 3 and, indeed, the United Kingdom Government had accepted that the law failed to provide adequate protection to children and required amendment.
Cases citedCostello-Roberts v UK[1994] 1 FCR 65, (1993) 19 EHRR 112, ECt HR.
Coyne v UK (1997) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997–V 1856, ECt HR.
Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221, ECt HR.
HLR v France (1997) 26 EHRR 29, ECt HR.
Stubbings v UK[1997] 3 FCR 157, ECt HR.
X v Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235, ECt HR.
ApplicationIn an application (no 25599/94) to the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 July 1994 the applicant, A, complained that the United Kingdom had failed to protect him from ill-treatment by his stepfather, in violation of art 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950; TS 71 (1953); Cmnd 8969). The Commission declared the application admissible on 9 September 1996 and on 27 October 1997 referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights. The facts are set out in the judgment of the court.
23 September 1998.
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTSdelivered the following judgment.
Procedure1. The case was referred to the court by the European Commission of Human Rights on 27 October 1997, within the three-month period laid down by arts 32(1) and 47 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950; TS 71 (1953); Cmnd 8969) (the Human Rights Convention). It originated in an application (no 25599/94) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under art 25 by a British national, A, on 15 July 1994. The applicant asked the court not to reveal his identity.
The Commission’s request referred to arts 44 and 48 of the convention and the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the court (art 46). The object of the Commission’s request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent state of its obligations under arts 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the convention.
2. In response to the inquiry made in accordance with r 3(3)(d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent him (r 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (art 43 of the convention), and Mr R Ryssdal, the President of the Court (r 21(4)(b)). On 28 November 1997, in the presence of the registrar, Mr Ryssdal drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr L-E Pettiti, Mr C Russo, Mrs E Palm, Mr J Makarczyk, Mr P Kuris, Mr J Casadevall and Mr V Toumanov (art 43 in fine of the convention and r 21(5)). Subsequently Mr R Bernhardt, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education & Employment
...Therefore, art 8 would not apply in the instant case. Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed. Cases referred to in judgmentsA v UK[1998] 3 FCR 597, [1998] 2 FLR 959, ECt Arrowsmith v UK (1978) 3 EHRR 218, E Com HR. C v UK (1983) 37 DR 142, E Com HR. Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHR......
-
Jeffery PATTINSON and Spencer FLACK
...Therefore, art 8 would not apply in the instant case. Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed. Cases referred to in judgmentsA v UK[1998] 3 FCR 597, [1998] 2 FLR 959, ECt Arrowsmith v UK (1978) 3 EHRR 218, E Com HR. C v UK (1983) 37 DR 142, E Com HR. Campbell and Cosans v UK (1982) 4 EHR......
-
R (Burke) v General Medical Council
...it is threatening not to do what he says it should be doing. [120] Indeed, as cases such as Botta v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 241 and A v UK[1998] 3 FCR 597 show, both art 8 and art 3 can impose on the state in certain circumstances a positive obligation to take steps to protect an individual no......
-
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
...3 WLR 24, [2002] 1 FLR 845. A v Liverpool City Council [1981] 2 All ER 385, [1982] AC 363, [1981] 2 WLR 948, (1981) 2 FLR 222, HL. A v UK[1998] 3 FCR 597, [1998] 2 FLR 959, ECt Bensaid v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 297, ECt HR. Birmingham City Council v Oakley [2001] 1 All ER 385, [2001] 1 AC 617, [2......