PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 44362/04) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Kirk and Lorraine Dickson, husband and wife (“the applicants”), on 23 November 2004.

The applicants, who were granted legal aid, were represented by Mr E. Abrahamson, a solicitor practising in Liverpool. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicants complained about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, which they argued breached their rights under Articles 8 and/or 12 of the Convention.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. On 8 March 2005 the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government and (pursuant to Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. On 18 April 2006 a Chamber of that Section composed of Josep Casadevall, President, Nicolas Bratza, Giovanni Bonello, Rait Maruste, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki and Javier Borrego Borrego, judges, unanimously declared the application admissible and, by four votes to three, held that there had been no violation of Articles 8 or 12 of the Convention. A concurring opinion of Judge Bonello, a joint dissenting opinion of Judges Casadevall and Garlicki as well as a dissenting opinion of Judge Borrego Borrego were appended to the judgment.

On 13 September 2006 a panel of the Grand Chamber granted the applicants’ request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.

The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24.

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits.

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 10 January 2007 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr J. Grainger, Agent, Mr D. Perry QC, Counsel, Mr A. Dodsworth, Adviser; (b) for the applicants Mr E. Abrahamson, Solicitor, Ms F. Krause, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Perry and Ms Krause.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1972 and 1958 respectively. The first applicant is in prison and the second applicant lives in Hull.

In 1994 the first applicant was convicted of murder (kicking a drunken man to death) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of fifteen years. His earliest expected release date is 2009. He has no children.

In 1999 he met the second applicant, while she was also imprisoned, through a prison pen-pal network. She has since been released. In 2001 the applicants married. The second applicant already had three children from other relationships.

Since the applicants wished to have a child, in October 2001 the first applicant applied for facilities for artificial insemination. In December 2002 the second applicant joined this application. They relied on the length of their relationship and the fact that, given the first applicant’s earliest release date and the second applicant’s age, it was unlikely that they would be able to have a child together without the use of artificial insemination facilities.

In a letter dated 28 May 2003 the Secretary of State refused their application. He first set out his general policy (“the Policy”): “Requests for artificial insemination by prisoners are carefully considered on individual merit and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In reaching decisions particular attention is given to the following general considerations: – whether the provision of artificial insemination facilities is the only means by which conception is likely to occur – whether the prisoner’s expected day of release is neither so near that delay would not be excessive nor so distant that he/she would be unable to assume the responsibilities of a parent – whether both parties want the procedure and the medical authorities both inside and outside the prison are satisfied that the couple are medically fit to proceed with artificial insemination – whether the couple were in a well established and stable relationship prior to imprisonment which is likely to subsist after the prisoner’s release – whether there is any evidence to suggest that the couple’s domestic circumstances and the arrangements for the welfare of the child are satisfactory, including the length of time for which the child might expect to be without a father or mother – whether having regard to the prisoner’s history, antecedents and other relevant factors there is evidence to suggest that it would not be in the public interest to provide artificial insemination facilities in a particular case.” He then gave his reasons for refusal in the present case: “... the Home Secretary has had particular regard to the likely age of your wife at the time that you will become eligible for release. Your wife will be 51 years of age at the earliest possible date of release and therefore the likelihood of her being able to conceive naturally is small. It is noted that Mrs Dickson has three children from an earlier relationship. In the light of your wife’s age, the Minister has looked with very great care at both you and your wife’s circumstances, ... The Minister has noted that you and your wife are in full agreement about your wish to conceive artificially. He also recognises the commitment which you and your wife have shown to one another. However, he notes that your relationship was established while you were in prison and has therefore yet to be tested in the normal environment of daily life. A reasoned and objective assessment cannot be made as to whether your relationship will subsist after your release. Further he is concerned that there seems to be insufficient provision in place to provide independently for the material welfare of any child which may be conceived. In addition, there seems to be little in the way of an immediate support network in place for the mother and any child which may be conceived. It also remains a matter of deep concern that any child which might be conceived would be without the presence of a father for an important part of his or her childhood years. While recognising the progress which you have made in addressing your offending behaviour, the constructive use that you have made of your time in prison in preparation for your release and your good prison behaviour, the Minister nevertheless notes the violent circumstances of the crime for which you were sentenced to life imprisonment. It is considered that there would be legitimate public concern that the punitive and deterrent elements of your sentence of imprisonment were being circumvented if you were allowed to father a child by artificial insemination while in prison.”

The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision. On 29 July 2003 the High Court refused leave on the papers. The applicants renewed their application and on 5 September 2003 leave was again refused after an oral hearing. On 13 October 2003 the applicants introduced an application to this Court and it was declared inadmissible on 15 December 2003 on the basis that they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies (application no. 34127/03). The applicants then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

On 30 September 2004 their application was unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal. Auld LJ relied in principle on the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Mellor) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 3 WLR 533. He pointed to the similarity of the arguments put by the applicants in the present case and in the Mellor case. Auld LJ relied on the conclusion of Lord Phillips, Master of the Rolls, in the Mellor case (see paragraphs 23-26 below) and commented: “... Lord Phillips clearly had in mind, and he set it out in the course of his judgment, the provisions of Article 8.2 of the Convention setting out various matters that may justify interference with the right to respect for private and family life, including the protection of health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedom of others. It seems to me that concern, not only for the public attitude to the exercise by prisoners of certain rights in prison which they would take for granted outside, and concern for the rights of a putative child in the upbringing it would receive depending on the circumstances and the length of the imprisonment involved, are highly relevant circumstances for the purposes of Article 8.2 ... Accordingly, in my view, it is not open to [the applicants] to seek to re-open the validity of the Secretary of State’s policy which this court has held in Mellor is rational and otherwise lawful. As Lord Phillips made clear in his judgment in that case, although the starting point of the policy is that deprivation of facilities for artificial insemination may prevent conception altogether, the finishing point is whether there are exceptional circumstances for not applying the policy ...” He then noted that on occasions the Secretary of State had “dis-applied” the Policy when the circumstances had merited it: he referred to a letter from the Treasury Solicitor to the applicants which apparently demonstrated this fact and pointed out that counsel for the Secretary of State had informed the court that there had been other such instances.

Auld LJ then applied the Policy to the present case: “To the extent that [the applicants have] suggested that [the] Secretary of State has irrationally misapplied his own policy to the circumstances, or has otherwise acted disproportionately in applying it, I would reject the suggestion. There is no basis for saying that the Secretary of State’s approach can be equated, as [the applicants] suggested, with the extinction of a fundamental right. It was a weighing of the starting point of the policy against the other considerations for which the policy itself provided, an exercise of discretion and proportionality in respect of which, in my view, the Secretary of State cannot be faulted on the circumstances as presented to him.”

The other judges also relied on the judgment in Mellor. Mance LJ said the following: “The case of Mellor is also clear authority that considerations and potential consequences of public interest over and above a narrow view of the requirements of good order and security in prison can play a role in a decision whether or not to permit such artificial insemination ... I note that, in addition to the European authorities specifically mentioned in paragraph 42 by Lord Phillips, the Commission, in its decision in Draper v. the United Kingdom [no. 8186/78, Commission’s report of 10 July 1980, DR 24, pp. 81-82, §§ 61-62], also recognised the potential relevance of more general considerations of public interest.”

On 19 December 2006 the first applicant was transferred to the open side of another prison as a Category D prisoner. In principle, he was eligible for unescorted home leave after six months should he retain his Category D status (Rule 9 of the Prison Rules 1999, as implemented by Chapter 4.3 – “Temporary Release for Life Sentence Prisoners” – of Prison Service Order 6300).
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e1
001-83788_a8_em1
CODE
QUASI
44362/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e2
001-83788_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e3
001-83788_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e4
001-83788_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Kirk and Lorraine Dickson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e5
001-83788_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
23 November 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e6
001-83788_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Abrahamson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e7
001-83788_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Liverpool
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e8
001-83788_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e9
001-83788_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e10
001-83788_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e11
001-83788_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e12
001-83788_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
18 April 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e13
001-83788_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Josep Casadevall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e14
001-83788_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e15
001-83788_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Giovanni Bonello
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e16
001-83788_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Rait Maruste
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e17
001-83788_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Stanislav Pavlovschi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e18
001-83788_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Lech Garlicki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e19
001-83788_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Javier Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e20
001-83788_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Judge Bonello
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e21
001-83788_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Judges Casadevall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e22
001-83788_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Garlicki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e23
001-83788_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Judge Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e24
001-83788_a8_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-83788_a8_e25
001-83788_a8_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e26
001-83788_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
10 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e9
001-83788_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e27
001-83788_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Perry QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e28
001-83788_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Dodsworth
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e6
001-83788_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Abrahamson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e29
001-83788_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Ms F. Krause
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e27
001-83788_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
001-83788_a8_em28
Mr Perry
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e29
001-83788_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
001-83788_a8_em31
Ms Krause
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e30
001-83788_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
1972
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e31
001-83788_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
1958
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e32
001-83788_a8_em36
LOC
QUASI
Hull
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e33
001-83788_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e34
001-83788_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
fifteen years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e35
001-83788_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e36
001-83788_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e37
001-83788_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e38
001-83788_a8_em42
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e39
001-83788_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e40
001-83788_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e41
001-83788_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
28 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e42
001-83788_a8_em46
DEM
QUASI
51 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e43
001-83788_a8_em47
PERSON
DIRECT
Mrs Dickson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e38
001-83788_a8_em48
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
three children
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e44
001-83788_a8_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
29 July 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e45
001-83788_a8_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e46
001-83788_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e47
001-83788_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
13 October 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e48
001-83788_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
15 December 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e49
001-83788_a8_em54
CODE
DIRECT
34127/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e50
001-83788_a8_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e51
001-83788_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e50
001-83788_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e52
001-83788_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Auld LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e50
001-83788_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e53
001-83788_a8_em60
MISC
NO_MASK
R (Mellor) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e37
001-83788_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e54
001-83788_a8_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mellor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e52
001-83788_a8_em63
PERSON
QUASI
Auld LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e55
001-83788_a8_em64
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Phillips
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e54
001-83788_a8_em65
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mellor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e55
001-83788_a8_em66
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Phillips
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e54
001-83788_a8_em67
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mellor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e55
001-83788_a8_em68
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Phillips
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e56
001-83788_a8_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
Treasury Solicitor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e52
001-83788_a8_em70
PERSON
QUASI
Auld LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e54
001-83788_a8_em71
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mellor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e57
001-83788_a8_em72
PERSON
QUASI
Mance LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e54
001-83788_a8_em73
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mellor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e55
001-83788_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Phillips
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-83788_a8_e58
001-83788_a8_em75
MISC
NO_MASK
Draper v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e59
001-83788_a8_em76
CODE
QUASI
8186/78
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e60
001-83788_a8_em77
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 July 1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e61
001-83788_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-83788_a8_e62
001-83788_a8_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
six months
Lorraine Dickson
GBR
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Lorraine Dickson