Four siblings alleged that Bedfordshire County Council had failed to take adequate measures in respect of severe neglect and abuse, which they were known to be suffering due to their ill treatment by their parents.

The judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is significant in demonstrating that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, children are able to take proceedings against a local authority where their human rights have been abused.

Evidence

There were numerous reports from neighbours, relatives, the children's schools and others who came into contact with the children that they were being neglected, were unkempt and withdrawn and were stealing food from bins.

In the opinion of a consultant psychiatrist, social services had "leaned over backwards to avoid putting these children on the child protection register and had delayed too long, leaving at least three of the children with serious psychological disturbance as a result". The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board found that they had been subject to physical and psychological injury over an extended period of time and awarded compensation.

Action taken by the children

In 1993 the Official Solicitor, acting on behalf of the children, took proceedings against the LA, claiming damages for negligence and /or breach of statutory duty. The application was struck out and the children appealed.

The House of Lords rejected the appeal on the ground that no action could be taken against a LA in negligence or for breach of statutory duty concerning the discharge of their duties relating to the welfare of children under the Children Act 1989. (X v Bedfordshire County Council 1995)

The children appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. On 10 May 2001, the Commission found that there had been a violation of article 3 (the LA had failed to protect the children from inhuman and degrading treatment) and of article 13 (which requires an effective remedy in respect of violations of the Convention). The European Court acknowledged that social services were faced with difficult and sensitive decisions and also had to respect and preserve family life. The system had, however, failed to protect the child applicants from serious long-term neglect and abuse. The exclusionary rule applied by the House of Lords deprived the children of an effective remedy, in violation of Article 13. Although the children had access to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and to the Ombudsman, this was not enough as neither could award compensation for neglect. The two most seriously affected children were awarded £132,000 and £112,000 damages. (To be paid by the Government)

Comments on implications for local authorities

Breaches of Article 13 were found despite the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ombudsman and complaints procedure under the Children Act 1989. The UK Court proceedings had been taken before the Human Rights Act was enacted, which now clearly gives a domestic legal remedy where authorities fail in their positive obligations to protect against inhuman and degrading treatment. While local authorities need to be sensitive to the need to respect family life, (Article 8) timely intervention must be taken to protect children from neglect and abuse. The level of damages awarded by the European Court is indicative that courts will not shy away from awarding substantial damages to compensate for the costs of remedial treatment and severe damage to the child. Referral and initial response systems are vitally important, as are child protection reviews. Using the Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families, services should be delivered to meet assessed needs, provide effective help to children and families and deliver positive outcomes for them. (The framework was introduced in 2000)