DICKSON AND DICKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 44362/04 [2007] ECHR 17 (10 January 2007)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today 10 January 2007 at 9 a.m., in the case of Dickson and Dickson v. the United Kingdom (application no. 44362/04).

The applicants, Kirk and Lorraine Dickson, are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1958 respectively. Mr Dickson is in Dovergate Prison, Uttoxeter (United Kingdom) and Mrs Dickson lives in Hull (United Kingdom).

In 1994 Mr Dickson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (the minimum period to be served) of 15 years. He has no children. In 1999 he met Lorraine, via a prison pen pal network while she was also imprisoned. In 2001 they married. Mrs Dickson already had three children from other relationships.

The couple requested artificial insemination facilities to enable them to have a child together, arguing that it would not otherwise be possible, given Mr Dickson’s earliest release date and Mrs Dickson’s age. The Secretary of State refused their application. They appealed unsuccessfully.

The applicants complain about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 (right to marry and found a family) of the Convention.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2004.

In its Chamber judgment of 18 April 2006 (press release no. 222, 2006), the Court noted that the Secretary of State had given careful consideration to the applicants’ circumstances, including the unlikely event of the couple being able to conceive after Mr Dickson’s release from prison, before concluding that those factors were outweighed by the other factors. Particular reference was given to the nature and gravity of Mr Dickson’s crime and the welfare of any child who might be conceived, in the light of the prolonged absence of the father for an important part of her or his childhood years and the apparent lack of sufficient material provision and of an immediate support network for the mother and child. The Court further noted that the decision of the Secretary of State was examined by the High Court and the Court of Appeal which found the decision to refuse the facilities was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate.

In view of those circumstances, the Chamber found that it had not been shown that the decision to refuse facilities for artificial insemination was arbitrary or unreasonable or that it failed to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual. There had accordingly been no failure to respect the applicants’ rights to private and family life and the Chamber held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 8 or 12.

Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Nicolas Bratza (British),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian),
Peer Lorenzen (Danish),
Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),
Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian)
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
John Hedigan (Irish),
András Baka (Hungarian),
Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),
Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese),
Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),
Egbert Myjer (Dutch),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese),
Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), substitute judges,

and also Vincent Berger, Section Registrar.

After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

1 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DICKSON AND DICKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 44362/04 [2007] ECHR 17 (10 January 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/17.html Cite as: [2007] ECHR 17