CASE STUDIES
Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8,
ECHR)
A young man
called Graham Gaskin was very badly treated in care for many years. He wanted
to read his social services files, which were kept by Liverpool City Council.
The Council refused to let him see all his files. Graham Gaskin went through
the courts in the UK to try and force the Council to let him see his files, but
the courts agreed with the Council. So he took his complaint to the European
Court of Human Rights.
The European
Court of Human Rights said the Council had breached Graham Gaskin’s rights. The
Court agreed he needed to see his social services files in order to try and
make sense of his childhood and his treatment in care. As a result of Graham
Gaskin’s complaint, which was decided by the European Court in 1989, it is now
much easier for people in care or in contact with social services to see
information that is written about them. Councils must now keep files concerning
children in care for 75 years.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9,
ECHR)
In 2004, a 16
year -old girl called Shabina Begum complained to the UK courts about her
school’s uniform rules. Her older brother helped her work with a lawyer to
bring her case. Shabina’s lawyer said that her human rights had been breached
because the school would not let her wear a jilbab, which she considered
necessary to wear because of her religion. The UK Court of Appeal agreed
Shabina’s rights had been breached, but then the case went to the House of
Lords, which disagreed and said that her rights had not been breached.
Even though
Shabina lost her final court case, there was a lot of discussion about school
uniforms in the newspapers and on TV. The Government wrote new rules for
schools emphasising that students and parents must be asked their views when
uniform rules are being made.
Right to a fair trial (Article 6, ECHR)
In 1999, two
boys complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their rights under
the ECHR had been breached. They had been put on trial in court for killing a
two year-old, and were just 10 years old when they committed the murder. The
boys' lawyers said that they had not had a fair trial because their case was
dealt with in an adult court. There were a number of journalists present, which
made the boys confused and frightened.
Judges in the
European Court of Human Rights agreed that the boys' right to a fair trial had
been breached. The judgment said the UK Government should make changes to
protect the rights of other children and young people appearing in court in
future. A lot of changes were made, though many human rights organisations and
campaigners are still concerned about how children who commit crimes in the UK
are treated.
Prohibition of torture (Article 3, European Convention on
Human Rights)
In 2007, the
families of two boys who had died in custody, during or after being restrained,
complained to the UK courts about a new law which allowed staff to use physical
force a lot more often on children in some prisons (called Secure Training
Centres). The lawyers said that the new law breached the boys right to
prohibition of torture. The UK Court of Appeal agreed and said that the new law
was in direct conflict with human rights law. This meant that the new law was
revoked.
Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8,
European Convention on Human Rights)
Two children and
an adult got help from lawyers to complain about the police. They had been
stopped and searched by the police while at a protest in Kent about protecting
the environment. The children were told that they were being searched for items
because they were going to the protest. They were frightened by the experience.
They complained to the UK courts, but before the case finished the police
agreed they had breached the children’s rights. A settlement was agreed and
each child received compensation of £1,125 and a personal apology from the
police. A letter was also sent to every UK police force explaining why 'stop
and searches' that are carried out disproportionately are against the law and
what should be done differently in future.
Note: These case
studies are from the Children’s Right Alliance. For more on children’s rights,
visit the CRAE website.
No comments:
Post a Comment