Z & Ors v. United Kingdom - 29392/95 [2001] ECHR 333 (10 May 2001)
Citation: Z & Ors v. United Kingdom - 29392/95 [2001] ECHR 333 (10 May 2001)
Rule of thumb: Can there be blanket immunity for social workers who do not save children from abusive parents? No, if a social worker does not recognise red flags & save a child from abusive parents then the state must pay damages for this – it is a violation of the right against degrading treatment & a remedy for there to be blanket immunity in relation to this.
Judgment:
The facts of this case were that the UK Supreme Court/ House of Lords had decided that social security whose duties included protecting children from abusive parents or other abusers in children’s homes should possess immunity from any damages actions for breach of duty. The Court held that this was a violation of human rights – this was deemed to be a violation of the right to a remedy and the right to be free of inhumane and degrading treatment. There had to be a level of negligence which would be considered a breach of duty and negligent leading to an action for damages. A breach of administrative law statutes may not necessarily give a successful claim, but the child protection authorities could still be sued for negligence if the right circumstances arose. ‘There is no dispute in the present case that the neglect and abuse suffered by the four applicant children reached the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment (as recounted in paragraphs 11-36 above). This treatment was brought to the local authority's attention, at the earliest in October 1987. It was under a statutory duty to protect the children and had a range of powers available to them, including the removal of the children from their home. These were, however, only taken into emergency care, at the insistence of the mother, on 30 April 1992. Over the intervening period of four and a half years, they had been subjected in their home to what the consultant child psychiatrist who examined them referred as horrific experiences (see paragraph 40 above). The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board had also found that the children had been subject to appalling neglect over an extended period and suffered physical and psychological injury directly attributable to a crime of violence (see paragraph 49 above). The Court acknowledges the difficult and sensitive decisions facing social services and the important countervailing principle of respecting and preserving family life. The present case, however, leaves no doubt as to the failure of the system to protect these applicant children from serious, long-term neglect and abuse. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention... The Court finds that in this case the applicants did not have available to them an appropriate means of obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority failed to protect them from inhuman and degrading treatment and the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage suffered thereby. Consequently, they were not afforded an effective remedy in respect of the breach of Article 3 and there has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention’. (Luzius Wildhaber, President, Paul Mahoney, Deputy Registrar)
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.