Abused man wins £3,000 over right to care records

A man who claims to have suffered years of child abuse by his father has won £3,000 damages after a court ruled that social workers had breached his human rights by denying him access to his family records.

In a landmark ruling yesterday, judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said the man had been illegally refused access to information on his father. Family lawyers said they thought the case would lead to a much wider disclosure to children of personal records about their parents.

From the age of one until seven, the man, now aged 42, from Leicester, identified only as MG, had spent intermittent periods in local authority voluntary care while still having contact with both parents. During this time his mother received periodic psychiatric treatment and his father had some difficulty coping with the children on his own.

In 1997 MG wrote to his local authority saying he was being counselled for abuse received as a child and that he had consulted solicitors on a negligence action against the social services department.

He requested information on allegations of ill-treatment made in November 1966 and about his being abused by his father for eight years after. The local authority wrote back referring him to the information provided in 1995 and to the differences between social work standards in 1997 and in the 1960s. The local authority said it had provided summary information before 1966 but said that there were "no detailed records relating to him after 1967 and little mention of ill-treatment." The man's solicitors continued to press for full disclosure.

Yesterday, the court noted that one of the main reasons the applicant sought access to his records was his "sincere belief" that he had been physically abused when he was a child by his father.

The judges said MG was only given limited access to his records in 1995, compared with the records submitted to the ECHR by the British Government. In addition, MG had no statutory right of access to those records or clear indication by way of a binding legislation of the grounds upon which he could request access or challenge a denial of access.

Most importantly, said the judges, he had no appeal against a refusal of access to any independent body. Significant parts of the document he had been allowed to see were blanked out and other documents retained. In such circumstances, said the judges, there had been a failure to fulfil the positive obligation to protect the applicant's private and family life in respect of his access to his social service records from April 1995.

MG was was awarded €4,000 for non-pecuniary damage.