Boyle v United Kingdom (Application 16580/90) [1994] ECHR 9

An uncle complained about being denied access to his nephew who was taken into care, and the absence of any legal mechanism to apply to court for access before the Children Act 1989. The case was struck out following a friendly settlement where the Government paid compensation and expressed regret.

Facts

The applicant, Terence Boyle, formed a close bond with his nephew C., born in 1980 to his sister M. In February 1989, C. was removed from his mother’s care under a Place of Safety Order on suspicion of sexual abuse. Despite criminal charges against M. being dropped, a full care order was made in April 1989. The applicant was described as having been ‘a good father figure’ to C.

The applicant repeatedly requested access to C. throughout the placement in care. He was permitted one supervised visit in September 1989, but further access was refused by Lancashire County Council because he denied that sexual abuse by his sister had occurred. Unlike M., the applicant was not invited to attend meetings or case conferences where access was discussed.

In July 1991, a County Court made an order freeing C. for adoption. The judge criticised the ‘blinkered’ approach of the local authority and expressed grave reservations about the original findings of sexual abuse, but considered adoption in the child’s best interests.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the refusal by the local authority to allow the applicant access to his nephew in care, and the absence of any statutory mechanism for non-parental relatives to apply to courts for access prior to the Children Act 1989, violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for family life).

Proceedings Before the Commission

The applicant lodged his application with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 October 1989. The Commission declared the application admissible on 15 May 1992. In its report of 9 February 1993, the Commission expressed the opinion, by fourteen votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 8.

Judgment

The case was resolved through a friendly settlement before the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment on the merits. The terms of the settlement included:

(a) the Government will make an ex gratia payment of £15,000 to the applicant plus his reasonable legal costs in bringing the application;
(b) the Government note that the Children Act 1989 received Royal assent on 16 November 1989 and came into force on 16 November 1991. Section 34(3) confers on any person who has obtained the leave of the court to make an application, the possibility of having the question of contact between the child placed in local authority care and that person determined by a court in proceedings complying with Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention;
(c) the Government regret that, prior to the entry into force of section 34(3) of the Children Act 1989 on 16 November 1991, the applicant had no statutory right to apply to the court for contact with his nephew.

The Court took formal note of the friendly settlement and stated:

It discerns no reason of public policy (ordre public) why the case should not be struck out of the list.

Implications

This case highlighted the inadequacy of UK law prior to the Children Act 1989 in protecting the family life rights of non-parental relatives, particularly regarding children taken into care. The Government’s acknowledgment that the applicant had no statutory right to seek court determination of contact prior to the 1989 Act, combined with the compensation and expression of regret, effectively conceded the substance of the Article 8 complaint. The case reinforced the importance of procedural safeguards in child care decisions affecting extended family relationships.

Verdict: The Court unanimously decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement between the applicant and the United Kingdom Government.

Source: Boyle v United Kingdom (Application 16580/90) [1994] ECHR 9