Allcock and Others v. the United Kingdom
Partly struck out of the list
FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
Application nos. 19064/07, 31588/09 and 38619/09 by Wendy ALLCOCK and Others, Susan ADDISON and Others and Annita MACE and Timothy MADZIWA against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President, Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, Sverre Erik Jebens, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vučinić, Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates between 30 April 2007 and 17 September 2007, on 9 June 2009 and on 14 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1 The applicants are 107 individuals whose names are listed in Annex 1 to this decision. They are represented before the Court by Leigh Day & Co., a firm of solicitors based in London.
A. The circumstances of the case
2 The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3 Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) established the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (“POVA”) list. Inclusion on the POVA list effectively precluded a person from working as a care worker with vulnerable adults. The applicants' names were all first included on the POVA list provisionally on dates between 2004 and 2009 by the Secretary of State. Following provisional listing, it was for the Secretary of State, upon receipt of observations, to decide whether to confirm their names on the list or to remove them. The period for which their names remained provisionally on the list varied from a few months to years. The majority of the applicants subsequently had their names removed from the POVA list.
4 Three possibilities existed to challenge provisional inclusion in the POVA list. First, an individual could make representations to the Secretary of State to seek his removal from the list. Second, after provisional listing for nine months, an individual could apply to the Care Standards Tribunal to have his inclusion in the list determined by the Tribunal instead of the Secretary of State, provided that he obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so. Finally, an individual could seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision provisionally to include his name in the POVA list or to refuse to remove his name from the list.
5 Four of the applicants applied for judicial review with the support of the Royal College of Nursing: Ms Wright, whose appeal against her inclusion in the list to the Care Standards Tribunal was stayed pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings; and Mr Jummun, Ms Quinn and Ms Gambier, whose names had been removed from the POVA list following the Secretary of State's decision not to confirm their listing. They were representative applications, in the sense that there were other follow-up cases brought by other members of the Royal College of Nursing .
6 On 16 November 2006 Mr Justice Stanley Burnton in the High Court found the provisions of Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be incompatible with the rights of care workers under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. He accordingly made a declaration of incompatibility.
7 The Secretary of State appealed. On 24 October 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal. As to the applicability of Article 6, Lord Justice Dyson, giving the opinion for the majority, noted:
“ 86. In my view, the judge was right to conclude that a decision to include a worker in the POVA list engages article 6 in all cases. The consequences of being provisionally included in the POVA list can be seriously detrimental for the care worker. Whilst on the list, he or she may not be offered employment in a relevant care position and if employed in such a position, his or her employment is not even suspended, still less suspended on pay: it is terminated immediately. There is no requirement that, if at the stage of final determination, the care worker is removed from the list, he or she must be offered the previous employment. In my judgment, the provisional inclusion of a care worker in the list can have a clear and decisive effect on the worker ... the decision to include in the list is potentially one of a drastic character which may cause irreversible prejudice to the worker. ”
8 As to whether a breach of Article 6 § 1 arose, he found:
“101. But the fact that, as interpreted and applied by the Secretary of State, the CSA does not provide that the care worker should be given an opportunity to make representations before a decision is made to provisionally include him or her in the POVA list is an aspect of procedure and not a matter of substance. The question that arises is whether this apparent breach of article 6(1) at the first stage of the process is made good by the process when viewed as a whole. Mr Sales [for the Secretary of State] points to the following features of the process which, he submits, make good the absence of an opportunity for the care worker to make representations before the decision to include him or her in the list is made. First, there is the opportunity to apply to the Secretary of State at any time to remove the worker from the list under section 81(3). Secondly, there is the right to seek judicial review at any time of the original decision to include the worker in the list and a refusal to remove the worker from the list. Thirdly, there is the right of appeal which can be exercised after 9 months.
...
106 In my view, there are two reasons why the failure to afford the worker the opportunity to make representations before being included in the POVA list is a breach of article 6 which cannot be cured by any of the three means suggested by Mr Sales. First, the denial of the right to make representations is not a mere formal or technical breach. It is a denial of one of the fundamental elements of the right to a fair determination of a person's civil rights, namely the right to be heard. And the denial is total. The worker is not given an opportunity even to make the briefest of comments. Judicial review does not afford full jurisdiction, since it cannot make good the consequences of the denial of the opportunity to make representations at the earlier stage.
107 Secondly, none of the three means suggested by Mr Sales can make good the serious detriment suffered by the care worker as a result of being included in the POVA list. Section 81(3) does afford the worker a remedy of sorts. In some cases, he or she will be able to make a successful application under section 81(3) within a short time of being included in the list. But even in such cases, there is the potential for serious and irreversible prejudice to the worker by being included in the list in the first place. The former employer may offer to restore the care worker to his or her employment, but that is unlikely where the employer dismissed, suspended or provisionally transferred the worker on the grounds of misconduct. As for judicial review, proceedings are likely to take some time, and even if successful are unlikely to result in the restoration of the worker to his or her former employment. The same applies in relation to an appeal to the tribunal which cannot be determined until the worker has been in the list for 9 months. It is the (often irreversible) detrimental effect of the inclusion in the list that makes the breach of article 6 at the first stage of the process incurable by any of the means suggested by Mr Sales.”
9 However, he considered that the terms of the legislation could be read down pursuant to section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) to allow an Article 6-compatible interpretation of the relevant procedures. He concluded that the legislative provisions regarding provisional listing should be interpreted as requiring the Secretary of State to give workers the right to make representations before he made a decision provisionally to include their names in the POVA list, unless he reasonably considered that the resultant delay would place a vulnerable adult at risk of harm . In light of Dyson LJ's conclusions under Article 6 § 1, he considered it unnecessary to deal with the Article 8 issue.
10 The applicants appealed. On 21 January 2009 the House of Lords unanimously found the Part VII provisions to be incompatible with the Convention and made a declaration of incompatibility. Baroness Hale of Richmond, with whom their Lordships agreed, considered the operation of the scheme is some detail, noting the time taken between the provisional inclusion of a person's name in the POVA list and the eventual confirmation or removal of the name by the Secretary of State.
11 On the Article 6 § 1 issue, Baroness Hale considered that provisional listing on the POVA list would, in many cases, amount to a determination of a civil right, thus rendering the Article applicable, noting:
“22. ... The scheme allows for a temporary suspension or transfer to a non-care position. However, it is unlikely that an employer will take this option. They will have to employ another person to do the work which the listed person was employed to do. The reality is that that particular job will be lost to the listed person for good. Of course, some listed people will no longer be employed in care positions and so will not lose their existing jobs. Much was made on behalf of the Secretary of State of the wide range of jobs, even within the care sector, which remained open to a listed person, including any job in an independent or NHS hospital. But, once again, the reality is that a listed person is most unlikely to be able to obtain such a job or to keep it if she does not disclose that she has been listed. The main answer to this point, however, is that the scheme cannot assume that article 6(1) will never apply to provisional listing. There will undoubtedly be some cases, perhaps the majority, where it does apply ... [O]ur national law has to devise a scheme which will be generally applicable before the particular impact of the decision is known.”
12 She continued:
“26. My Lords, the scheme appears premised on the assumption that permanently to ban a person from a wide variety of care positions does require a full merits hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. That premise is, in my view, correct. The issue is what should be done on the way to that decision. How is a proper balance to be struck between the need to protect the vulnerable adults, who may be at risk from a care worker who has been referred to the Secretary of State, and the need to protect the care worker from suffering irreversible damage to her civil rights, as a result of allegations which later turn out to be unfounded, even frivolous or malicious, or at the very least blown up out of all proportion? ...
27 No-one can be in any doubt of the need for some scheme such as this to protect children and vulnerable adults from being harmed by the people who regularly come into contact with them in the course of work. The most practicable way of providing such a scheme may well be to have a list of banned individuals which is maintained administratively and where the initial decisions are made by officials ... However, in my view, Dyson LJ was entirely correct in his conclusion that the scheme as enacted in the Care Standards Act 2000 does not comply with article 6(1), for the reasons he gave. The process does not begin fairly, by offering the care worker an opportunity to answer the allegations made against her, before imposing upon her possibly irreparable damage to her employment or prospects of employment.”
13 However, she disagreed with Dyson LJ that the provisions could be read down so as to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, noting:
“29. ... The care worker suffers possibly irreparable damage without being heard whatever the nature of the allegations made against her. The care worker may have a good answer to the allegations no matter how serious they are. There may well be cases where the need to protect the vulnerable is so urgent that an 'ex parte' procedure can be justified. But one would then expect there to be a swift method of hearing both sides of the story and doing so before irreparable damage was done ... The problem, it seems to me, stems from the draconian effect of provisional listing, coupled with the inevitable delay before a full merits hearing can be obtained. That cannot be cured by offering some of the care workers an opportunity to make representations in advance, while denying that opportunity to other workers who may have been just as unfairly treated by their former employers ...”
14 As to the Article 8 issue, Baroness Hale indicated:
“36. For my part, I am inclined to take the same view of whether article 8 is engaged as to whether article 6 is engaged. There will be some people for whom the impact upon personal relationships is so great as to constitute an interference with the right to respect for private life and others for whom it may not. The scope of the ban is very wide ... The ban is also likely to have an effect in practice going beyond its effect in law. Even though the lists are not made public, the fact is likely to get about and the stigma will be considerable. The scheme must therefore be devised in such a way as to prevent possible breaches of the article 8 rights.
37 Mr Spencer [for the claimants] does not, of course, argue that such interference will never be justifiable under article 8(2). The point is that the procedures must be fair in the light of the importance of the interests at stake. I would agree that the low threshold for provisional listing adds to the risk of arbitrary and unjustified interferences and thus contributes to the overall unfairness of the scheme.”
15 She concluded that the procedure for provisional listing did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 and that the solution favoured by the Court of Appeal did not cure the problem.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1 The Care Standards Act 2000
16 As noted above, the POVA list was established by Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 (“CSA”). The relevant provisions in Part VII of the CSA were repealed on 12 October 2009 , subject to certain saving provisions, and replaced by a scheme established under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
a. Procedure for inclusion in the POVA list
17 Section 81(1) of the CSA required the Secretary of State to keep a list of individuals who were considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, known as the POVA list. Pursuant to section 81(2), an individual was not to be included in the POVA list except in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CSA. Section 81(3) provided:
“The Secretary of State may at any time remove an individual from the list if he is satisfied that the individual should not have been included in it.”
18 Section 82 dealt with the referral of individuals to the Secretary of State for potential inclusion in the POVA list. It provided:
“A person who provides care for vulnerable adults (the provider) shall refer a care worker to the Secretary of State if there is fulfilled–
(a) any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2); or
(b) the condition mentioned in subsection (3).”
19 The section 82(2) conditions were:
“(a) that the provider has dismissed the worker on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult;
(b) that the worker has resigned, retired or been made redundant in circumstances such that the provider would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds if he had not resigned, retired or been made redundant;
(c) that the provider has, on such grounds, transferred the worker to a position which is not a care position;
(d) that the provider has, on such grounds, suspended the worker or provisionally transferred him to a position which is not a care position but has not yet decided whether to dismiss him or to confirm the transfer.”
20 The section 82(3) condition was that:
“(a) in circumstances not falling within subsection (2), the provider has dismissed the worker, he has resigned or retired or the provider has transferred him to a position which is not a care position;
(b) information not available to the provider at the time of the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer has since become available; and
(c) the provider has formed the opinion that, if that information had been available at that time and if (where applicable) the worker had not resigned or retired, the provider would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him, on such grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2)(a).”
21 Section 82(4) set out the scope of the Secretary of State's powers upon receipt of a reference and provided:
“If it appears from the information submitted with a reference under subsection (1) that it may be appropriate for the worker to be included in the list kept under section 81, the Secretary of State shall
(a) determine the reference in accordance with subsections (5) to (7); and
(b) pending that determination, provisionally include the worker in the list.”
22 Pursuant to section 82(5), the Secretary of State was required to invite observations from the care worker and the provider on the information submitted with the reference. Section 82(6) provided:
“Where
(a) the Secretary of State has considered the information submitted with the reference, any observations submitted to him and any other information which he considers relevant; and
(b) in the case of a reference under subsection (2)(d), the provider has dismissed the worker or, as the case may be, has confirmed his transfer on such grounds as are there mentioned,
the Secretary of State shall confirm the worker's inclusion in the list if subsection (7) applies; otherwise he shall remove him from the list.”
23 Section 82(7) applied if the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the provider reasonably considered the worker to be guilty of misconduct, whether or not in the course of his employment, which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult; and that the worker was unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.
24 Section 83 imposed on employment agencies and employment businesses a duty to refer workers to the Secretary of State in similar circumstances as those applicable at the time to providers.
b. Consequences of inclusion in the POVA list
25 As to the consequences of inclusion in the POVA list, section 89(1) provided:
“Where a person who provides care to vulnerable adults proposes to offer an individual employment in a care position that person–
(a) shall ascertain whether the individual is included in the list kept under section 81; and
(b) if he is included in that list, shall not offer him employment in such a position.”
26 Section 89(2) provided:
“Where a person who provides care to vulnerable adults discovers that an individual employed by him in a care position is included in that list, he shall cease to employ him in a care position.
For the purposes of this subsection an individual is not employed in a care position if he has been suspended or provisionally transferred to a position which is not a care position.”
27 Finally, section 89(5) made it an offence for an individual who was included otherwise than provisionally in the POVA list to knowingly apply for, offer to do, accept or do any work in a care position.
c. Challenges to inclusion in the POVA list
28 Section 86 set out the possibility of an appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal. Section 86(1) provided:
“An individual who is included (otherwise than provisionally) in the list kept by the Secretary of State under section 81 may appeal to the Tribunal against
(a) the decision to include him in the list; or
(b) with the leave of the Tribunal, any decision of the Secretary of State not to remove him from the list under section 81(3).”
29 Section 86(2) permitted an individual who had been provisionally included in the POVA list for a period of more than nine months to have the issue of his inclusion in the list determined by the Tribunal instead of the Secretary of State, provided that he obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so.
30 Pursuant to section 86(3), if on an appeal or determination under section 86 the Tribunal was not satisfied that the individual was guilty of misconduct, whether or not in the course of his duties, which harmed or placed at risk of harm a vulnerable adult or that the individual was unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, the Tribunal was required to allow the appeal or determine the issue in the individual's favour and, in either case, to direct his removal from the POVA list. If the Tribunal was satisfied that both conditions were met, it was obliged to dismiss the appeal or direct the individual's inclusion in the POVA list.
2 The Human Rights Act 1998
31 Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Human Rights Act”) provides as follows:
“(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
(2) This section–
(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;
...”
32 Section 4 of the Act provides:
“(1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right.
(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
...”
33 Finally, section 6(1) of the Act provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. Section 6(2) clarifies that:
“Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if–
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention about the procedure for the provisional listing of their names in the POVA list.
They also complain under Article 13 that they were denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaints.
THE LAW
I. THE STRIKING-OUT OF THE COMPLAINTS OF THIRTY-ONE APPLICANTS
34 On 5 August 2009 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that one applicant (application no. 31588/09) no longer wished to participate in the application. They therefore requested that his name be withdrawn from the case and that no further action be taken on his behalf.
35 On 11 April 2011 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that settlements had been reached with the Government in respect of twenty-four applicants (see list in Annex 2). They enclosed signed forms from each of the twenty-four applicants confirming their consent to the withdrawal of their claims on the grounds that a settlement had been achieved.
36 On 27 April 2001 the solicitors for the applicants informed the Court in writing that six further applicants (application nos. 19064/07 and 31588/09) no longer wished to proceed with their applications. They therefore requested that their names be withdrawn from the case.
37 In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the complaints of the thirty-one applicants identified above, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in the case of the seven applicants who requested that their names be withdrawn and within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) in respect of the other twenty-four applicants.
38 In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the complaints of the thirty-one applicants out of the list.
II. THE REMAINING SEVENTY-SIX APPLICANTS
39 The Court considers that the complaints of the remaining seventy-six applicants raise complex issues of fact and law and that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the complaints at this stage. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Article 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to request the observations of the respondent Government on the admissibility of the complaints.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike out of its list of cases the complaints of the thirty-one applicants identified in Annex 2;
Decides to adjourn the examination of the remaining seventy-six applicants' complaints;
Decides , pursuant to Article 29 § 1 of the Convention in fine , to examine separately the issue of admissibility.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki Registrar President
ANNEX 1
Application no.
Name of applicant
Nationality
Year of birth
19064/07
Godwin Agbo
British
1953
19064/07
Mary Akuoko-Buabeng
Ghanaian
1951
19064/07
Parveen Alishah
British
1967
19064/07
Wendy Allcock
British
1963
19064/07
Sajina Arulappan
Indian
1976
19064/07
Olawunmi Bakare
British
1951
19064/07
Maria Berry
British
1935
19064/07
Roger Berryman
British
1961
19064/07
Riffat Bhatti
Pakistani
1965
19064/07
Tricia Boyce
British
1976
19064/07
Dawn Campy
British
1965
19064/07
Rhodora Carranza
British
1966
19064/07
Yvonne Cemane
South African
1953
19064/07
Zaibunnisa Channa
Pakistani
1971
19064/07
Barbara Chapman-Smith
British
1950
19064/07
Alice Cheang
British
1953
19064/07
Evangelista Chikono
Zimbabwean
1969
19064/07
Kim Clarke
British
1961
19064/07
Peter Davies
British
1957
19064/07
Susan Mary Dedman
British
1954
19064/07
Dianne Dixon
British
1964
19064/07
Janet Foster
British
1945
19064/07
Catherine Mary Furniss
British
1966
19064/07
Barbara Janet Gambier
British
1943
19064/07
Josephine Ghunney
Ghanaian
1965
19064/07
Mercy Grabet
South African
1937
19064/07
Richard Christopher Grun
Dutch
1946
19064/07
Jacqueline Hodgson
British
1967
19064/07
Kim Holland
British
1966
19064/07
Patience Grace Amen Jesuorobo
British
1961
19064/07
Anju John
Indian
1980
19064/07
Neil Johnson
British
1957
19064/07
Prakash Joseph
Indian
1973
19064/07
Sini Joyce
British
1976
19064/07
Khemraj Jummun
British
1948
19064/07
Yuri Kazlouski
Belarusian
1981
19064/07
Mary Ann Kerry
British
1949
19064/07
Nicola Koster
British
1968
19064/07
Weng Kheong Lim
Malaysian
1955
19064/07
Annah Madamombe
Zimbabwean
1966
19064/07
George Marsh
British
1942
19064/07
Angus Simon McDonald
British
1965
19064/07
John Merrit
British
1976
19064/07
Adam James Millis
British
1976
19064/07
Temakazi Moyana
South African
1953
19064/07
Katarzyna Namyslaw
Polish
1976
19064/07
Mariatu Nuni
Sierra Leonean
1951
19064/07
Lucy Olaniya
Nigerian
1960
19064/07
Joshua Oni
Nigerian
1957
19064/07
Tina Orsich
British
1969
19064/07
Mary Quinn
British
1947
19064/07
Pran Rampersad
British
1953
19064/07
Dhanwantee Rampersad
British
1963
19064/07
Irene Taylor
British
1952
19064/07
Philip Thompson
British
1963
19064/07
Shelvi Varkey
British
1974
19064/07
Anne Wallace
British
1947
19064/07
Philip Weeks
British
1945
19064/07
June Wright
British
1949
19064/07
Samina Wright
British
1967
31588/09
Susan Addison
British
1953
31588/09
Mary Afolabi
Nigerian
1945
31588/09
John Ajewole
Nigerian
1954
31588/09
Oluwatoyin Abeni Amao
Nigerian
1962
31588/09
Audrey Mary Barnfield
British
1953
31588/09
Carol Joan Burnett
British
1944
31588/09
Alison Butterworth
British
1957
31588/09
Stuart Byron
British
1983
31588/09
Coleen Carter
British
1954
31588/09
Margaret Corser
British
1958
31588/09
Valerie Ann Davies
British
1945
31588/09
Enda Evans
British
Not known
31588/09
Bridget Evington
British
1951
31588/09
Nigel Alan Fear
British
1952
31588/09
Elaine Fitzgerald
British
1959
31588/09
David Fletcher
British
1978
31588/09
Susan Phyllis Greening
British
1959
31588/09
Elizabeth Gulzaman
Pakistani
1966
31588/09
Debbie Hall
British
1965
31588/09
Dawn Harris
British
1955
31588/09
Denise Ann Holroyd
British
1948
31588/09
Kenneth Francis Holroyd
British
1940
31588/09
Victoria Anne Horsley
British
1974
31588/09
Clarister Maureen Javor
British
1961
31588/09
Shibu Joseph
British
1975
31588/09
Shaun Joyce
British
1980
31588/09
Nikolinka Kamberova
Bulgarian
1961
31588/09
Doreen Mahlunge
Zimbabwean
1947
31588/09
Maureen Malone
British
1942
31588/09
Gertrude Masabo
Zambian
1956
31588/09
Rebecca Mweseli
Kenyan
1965
31588/09
Sarah Newark
British
1980
31588/09
Flavia Ngcobo
South African
1959
31588/09
Joan Nhachi
Zimbabwean
1966
31588/09
Sarah Celia Reilly
British
1966
31588/09
Debra Richards
British
1963
31588/09
Simon Rutter
British
1967
31588/09
Marie Jacqueline Seeborun
Mauritian
1951
31588/09
Hasifa Segujja
Ugandan
1966
31588/09
Maureen Priscilla Sheikh
British
1949
31588/09
Neil Paul Taylor
British
1966
31588/09
Emily Charlotte Tutton
British
1972
31588/09
Bindu Vanalloor Punushothaman Pillai
Indian
1976
31588/09
Caroline Ann Wade
British
1957
31588/09
Linda Watkins
British
1950
38619/09
Annita Mace
British
Not known
38619/09
Timothy Madziwa
Not known
Not known
ANNEX 2
Cases in which settlement reached:
Cases in which applicants requested withdrawal: