Jugendamtsterror und Familienrechtsverbrechen

Martin MITCHELL

.
Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: „Niemand darf der Folter oder unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Strafe oder Behandlung unterworfen werden.“

Seitheriges gleichlautendes Urteil in Großbritannien ( United Kingdom; UK ) zu dem Urteil im Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg im Fall Louise O’Keeffe gegen Irland EuGMR 027 (2014), entschieden am 28.01.2014.

With compliments from a mature-age law student in Adelaide, South Australia.

an important 129-page Judgement of a UK court in quasi civil jurisdiction

PARALLEL DECISION

to Louise O’Keeffe v Ireland ECHR 027 (2014) decided 28.01.2014 in Strasbourg

decided in the United Kingdom

Approved Judgement (of 28.02.2014) @ www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/dsd-and-nbv-v-met-police.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE –
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 436 (QB) –
Case No: HQ10X03508 & HQ12X00388

Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 28/02/2014

before MR. JUSTICE GREEN

1) DSD; 2) NBV Claimants - and - The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Defendant

known as: - DSD & NBV v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis

[ LAW: Human Rights Act (HRA (UK) equivalent to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (applicable in the entire European Union) ]

Zitat:

.
C. THE LAW

[ commencing at p. 70, paragraph 138 of the judgement ]

[ and then at pp. 102, 103, paragraph 229 of the judgement ]

(i) Strasbourg case law is consistent and settled

229. First, the authorities from the Strasbourg Court set out in extenso above demonstrate that the duty on the State to investigate under Article 3 the conduct of private parties which amount to torture or degrading or inhuman treatment is established in a long line of consistent case law stretching back well over a decade. The principle is not a stray or maverick line of thought which having briefly emerged has been (and should be) forgotten. On the contrary, it represents clear, consistent and established principle which has evolved and solidified over many years and which has received approval from a very large cohort of Strasbourg Judges, including qua President, Sir Nicholas Bratza. I would be disregarding my duty under Section 2 Human Rights Act to “take account” of this case law if I was to attach no weight to it.

[ and then at p. 103, paragraph 230 of the judgement ]

230. Secondly, the above conclusion is not heretical to the common law. The duty on the police to investigate effectively is a bare minimum safeguard in any civilised State. In the course of argument I asked Mr Johnson QC [counsel for the defendant in this case] whether he accepted, on behalf of the Commissioner, that there was in domestic law a duty to investigate. He accepted that there was and, most helpfully, provided me with authority to support the proposition. He cited by way of authority a number of sources for this wholly unsurprising proposition.

[ and the Mr. Justice Green refers to a number of well known domestic (UK) cases establishing that proposition, that had in fact been furnished to the court by counsel for the defendant, ie. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ]

[ …and then study carefully the remainder of the judgment, especially pp. 102-108 ]

[ This entire judgement concludes at p. 129 ( original pagination, as well as digital pagination ). ]
.

With kind Regards

Martin MITCHELL
.