Not breach of rights to force doctor to disclose patient records

13 January 2011 by

Gillberg v Sweden – 41723/06 [2010] ECHR 1676 (2 November 2010) – Read judgment

A Swedish professor has failed in his European Court of Human Rights challenge to his conviction for disobeying a court order to hand over sensitive information in medical research, despite having promised the participants that the information would be for his use alone.

As reported in a past blog, the fact of their confidentiality does not preclude the medical records of third party patients being disclosed in legal proceedings. So too in relation to sensitive information given confidentially in the context of medical research, in view of the recent Strasbourg case of Gillberg v Sweden (Application no. 41723/06).

Professor Gillberg, the applicant in this case, was the former director of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Sweden. This Department stored theses on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, based on  neuropsychiatric research from 1977 to 1992. One hundred and forty-one pre-school children participated in the study. Professor Gillberg alleged that it was a precondition to the research that sensitive information about the participants would be accessible only to himself and his staff.

In 2002, two academics (a sociologist and a paediatrician) independently requested access to the research material from the University of Gothenburg, which refused it on the ground that the data requested was subject to secrecy. The Swedish administrative court of appeal found that the academics had a legitimate interest in the material in question, and should be granted access, subject to various confidentiality conditions.

Contrary to the orders of the Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal, Professor Gillberg refused to transfer the material, and indeed three of his colleagues later destroyed it. Professor Gillberg was convicted of misuse of office, and having failed in his appeals against conviction in national courts, he took his case to the ECHR claiming (among other things) that the conviction infringed his rights under Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

His argument under Article 8 was that, having regard to his promise of confidentiality to the families of the children who took part in the research, his criminal conviction infringed his right to private life as set out in Article 8, to which his professional life was a part. The court did not rule on whether there was in fact interference with Professor Gillberg’s private life, because even assuming that there was such an interference, his conviction for misuse of office was justifiable as necessary in a democratic society, and his sentence was not disproportionate.

Professor Gillberg also argued that his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 was infringed. He sought to argue that Article 10 included a ‘negative right’ not to be compelled to express oneself. The ECHR noted that he had not been convicted, however, for failing to give evidence, but for misuse of office in not complying with the judgments of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The ECHR doubted that his conviction amounted to an interference with his Article 10 rights, but again found it unnecessary to determine this question, as the conviction was in any case justifiable as proportionate to the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime, and the protection of others.

Of course, it would be wrong to accord too much significance to the decision in Gillberg, especially given the fact that it was not his own information that Professor Gillberg was seeking to protect. Instead, he had to construct his challenge on the rather tenuous basis that his conviction for disobeying the order of a national court impermissibly interfered with his own Convention rights, and it would have been surprising had the ECHR in effect validated such disobedience. Rather, the judgment suggests reluctance on the part of the ECHR to challenge the decisions of national courts relating to the disclosure of confidential information. If a UK court orders disclosure of medical information, the odds would seem to be against getting that decision overturned in Strasbourg.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: