RSS Feed

Tag Archives: article 6

Social workers slammed for lying on oath


I know the title seems pure clickbait, since it is the sort of thing that is alleged quite often, but this is a case where the Judge did actually make that conclusion.  It involves social workers and managers who set out to change the parenting assessment conducted by another worker (who the Judge found to be blameless) so that it reached different conclusions and painted a wholly different and negative picture and then lied to the Court about it. This is social workers interfering with the parents right to a fair trial. It really is deeply shocking stuff.


A, B, C, D and E (Final Hearing) 2015


The case was decided by His Honour Judge Horton, and involved Hampshire County Council. Some of the workers involved no longer work at Hampshire and they are not spared.



12. This is I hope an unusual case. I certainly have not previously come across one quite like it either at the Bar or as a judge.


13. My previous judgments explain these comments but in my experience it is exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker and the Team Manager; the withholding of the original report when it was ordered to be disclosed and the parties to the alterations lying on oath one of them twice, in order to try to cover up the existence of the original report. Those people are referred to and named in my December judgment but given the enormity of what they did and the fact they still work as social workers it is right that I should name them again so that practitioners and members of the public coming across them are aware of their shortcomings in this case.

  1. Sarah Walker Smart the children’s Social Worker lied twice to me on oath. I was told during this hearing that she has been promoted to Team Manager within this authority.
  2. Kim Goode, Sarah Walker Smart’s then Manager, was the person who initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me. At the time of the last hearing she was District Manager for the Isle of Wight. I was told during this hearing that she is still in post.
  3. Lisa Humphreys was Kim Goode’s Manager. Her evidence was deeply unimpressive. She made a ‘hollow’ apology to the parents during her evidence; she regarded a social worker lying on oath as “foolish” and she failed to accept any personal responsibility for what had gone on under her management. At the date of the last hearing she was Assistant Director of Children’s Social Care with Lambeth Borough Council.
  4. In my December judgment I concluded that the parents’ and children’s Article 6 and 8 Rights had been breached. The children had been removed illegally and the parents had not had a fair parenting assessment carried out due amongst other things to all professionals both childcare and legal, failing to identify M’s communication difficulties and the need for a psychological assessment. I therefore at the parents’ suggestion, directed that Symbol a parenting assessment organisation which specialises in people with learning and communication difficulties, should carry out a full parenting assessment. This was to be coupled with individual therapy for both parents. This ‘dual’ approach had been suggested by Dr Halari a highly qualified adult clinical psychologist who had seen each parent, prepared reports and who gave evidence. The plan was for the therapists and assessors to work together in order to give the parents the best possible chance of making the agreed and much needed changes to their parenting.




The December judgment had escaped my attention, so here it is


The portions setting out the failings of the Local Authority are long, but because they are so powerful, I will set them down in full   (I really can’t believe that I missed this judgment first time around).  Underlining, as ever, mine for emphasis (though I could almost underline every word). Apologies that the paragraph numbering goes all over the place.


  1. The factual matrix underpinning the breaches
  2. Removal
  3. Social worker Ms X was allocated to these children on 27 October 2011 and remained their social worker until Sarah Walker Smart was allocated the case in June 2013. During this time she formed a working relationship with the family.
  4. She was clearly concerned at A and B’s lack of schooling, failure to engage fully with health professionals and issues of basic neglect. Such was her concern that she initiated the PLO process on 12 April 2012. The PLO letter was clear and Ms X spelt out what was required. See Mrs Randall’s comments at D131.
  5. As early as 11 May 2012 Ms X had identified that the parents were unsure how to work with professionals and that the parents become aggressive and hostile.
  6. By April 2013 Mrs Randall’s opinion based on the recordings of Ms X was that little had really been achieved during 18 months of PLO process. D133
  7. In late Spring early summer 2013 Ms X obtained a new post within the authority. She made her last visit to the family on 4 June 2013. By this time Ms X had begun compiling information for Core Assessments on all the children and it was made a condition of her leaving that she completed Comprehensive Core Assessments. I heard evidence that I accept that Lisa Humphreys and Kim Goode were exasperated by Ms X’s failure to complete them.
  8. The new social worker allocated to the children was Sarah Walker Smart. She was new to this team and relatively inexperienced in child protection work. Her manager remained Kim Goode who was and is extremely experienced in such work having been in it for 18 years.
  9. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart carried out an introductory joint visit on 20 June 2013. I am satisfied that Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart found a situation that they had not been fully prepared for by Ms X’s case recordings. This was not only in relation to the condition of the home and children but also the attitude of the parents. The mother in particular was difficult and hostile. I pause there to record that whilst I make criticism of the parents it must be seen in the context of their then unidentified difficulties and the attitude of Kim Goode who I am quite sure did nothing to calm the situation. I have seen and heard Ms Goode. She is a strong willed, forceful, opinionated person who it would be difficult to challenge effectively or at all. Her manner of answering during cross examination amply demonstrated this.
  10. As a result of what they saw and as a result of there having been 18 months without sustained change Ms Goode and Ms Walker Smart decided that the case should be taken to a legal strategy meeting. This took place on 24 June 2013. see K136.
  11. It was decided that the Comprehensive Core Assessment “with concerns” should be concluded as soon as possible, that care proceedings should be instigated and that a new PLO letter would be written. This was delivered to the parents on 27 June which was the same date as Sarah Walker Smart’s first statement.
  12. On 11 July Ms Walker Smart visited the home and found things largely the same as before but that the children’s presentation was “Ok”.
  13. On 12 July Care Proceedings were issued and on the 15 July directions given including a direction for the LA to file and serve the “current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers”. A21
  14. Also on this date the Housing Officer visited the home. He was clearly concerned by the condition of the property; a number of problems with the condition of the property that had not been reported and the overcrowding but I am satisfied he does not “condemn” it or say that it is dangerous. He did believe that the family should be temporarily or permanently re-housed.
  15. On 15 July the court made directions including giving a hearing date for a contested ICO.
  16. On 16 July Ms Walker Smart spoke to the Housing Officer. She purportedly interpreted what he said as the house was condemned, dangerous and unfit for the family to remain in. It is clear from Ms Walker Smart’s e mail of the same date that she was trying to get Mr Sibley to say that the property was unsafe and dilapidated due to the parents’ neglect and makes it clear that “we are planning to remove the children” and “need as much evidence as possible based on the home conditions being unsafe”.
  17. I am satisfied that by this date Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart had decided that the children should be removed from their parents care and that they intended to bolster their case by involving the housing department. This is clear from the wording of the e mail and I interpret the e mail as pressure being put on the Housing Officer. It was clear from his evidence to me that he was not prepared to do so.
  18. Lisa Humphreys told me that she had approved the cost of B&B and that she had not approved the removal of the children from their parents. This does not fit in with the content of the e mail and I have trouble believing that Kim Goode would construct a plan for removal without the approval of her DSM.
  19. On 17 July at 09:00 Sarah Walker Smart made a visit to the home. It was she said her view that the children were “no longer safe in the home and that if they remained they could experience significant harm”. In reality I doubt that anything was very much different from before and I am certain that the grounds for immediate separation were not there. She reported on what she saw to Kim Goode.
  20. At 11:17 that day Kim Goode set out an action plan. That action plan clearly expected the police to use their administrative powers to remove the children. She does record that if the police won’t agree to do so then the mother is to be asked to go to B&B with the children. Ms Walker Smart never offered this option to the mother and I am satisfied from the video footage and her evidence that this option was never in her mind. It is probable that Kim Goode never discussed this option with her.
  21. At 15:30 that day a joint police and social services visit took place. The LA accepts that the visit and removal was unlawful and breached the family’s Human Rights. The details of the breaches are set out later in this judgment.
  22. I have viewed the Body Worn Camera footage. I can well see why the LA makes the admissions it does. The removal was a flagrant breach of this family’s Human Rights. There were insufficient grounds for such action and it is clear the police felt that too as they did not try to use their administrative powers; the correct procedure was not followed; no true consent was obtained, and that which was obtained came from F under duress. Further he did not have power to give consent for the older two children as he did not have parental responsibility a fact Ms Walker Smart should have known.
  23. I am asked by F to find that the use of the police was a manipulation to coerce the parents. I am not satisfied that the social workers were deliberately trying to manipulate the police although I am satisfied that the effect on the parents was to coerce them. The parents, mother in particular could be verbally aggressive and had been so to Ms Goode. In circumstances where it had been decided to remove the children from their parents and it could reasonably be anticipated that the parents could be hostile, it would be appropriate to involve the police to avoid there being a breach of the peace. However, the video footage shows that the situation was badly handled with 8 police officers and two social workers descending on the parents and presenting them with no choice but to relinquish their children. There were no grounds for such removal, there was no discussion, no alternatives offered and it was clearly the intention of Ms Walker Smart to remove the children from their parents’ care come what may by asking for consent to s20 accommodation if the police did not act.


  1. Factual matrix underpinning the failure to disclose material evidence
  2. This relates to the Comprehensive Core Assessment that Ms X completed and sent to Kim Goode for what has been described “Quality Assurance”.
  3. Ms X completed writing her CCA on 18 June 2013. See P125. The Assessment contained both positives and negatives. It was therefore a balanced report. She e mailed it to Kim Goode.
  4. On 27 June 2013 Sarah Walker Smart swore her first statement asking the Court to read her statement along with the ” Core Assessment (July 2013) completed by Ms X” (my emphasis).
  5. On 10 July Ms Melanie Kingsley asked Kim Goode to forward Ms X’s core Assessment. Kim Goode replied saying she just wanted to “pad out the conclusion before it goes off”.
  6. On 15 July the court directed the LA to file and serve the “current assessments to which the Social Work statement refers”.
  7. On 16 July Kim Goode made substantial changes to Ms X’s Comprehensive Core Assessment (CCA) which are recorded by the word processing programme by way of tracked changes. All the substantive changes made are negative. The changes change the tenor and conclusions of the report completely. The picture painted by it is now wholly negative and would if accepted, have the effect of substantially improving the LA’s case for removal of the children, probably permanently. In my judgment these changes amounted to a wholesale rewrite and were not a proper use of the Quality Assurance system.
  8. Ms X never approved the changes.
  9. Kim Goode sent the track changed document to Sarah Walker Smart on 17 July at 13:02 who made few if any and no substantial changes. She could not make many changes as she had little knowledge of the family due to her brief involvement. She signed the assessment as if it were her own and it was served on 6 August.
  10. Ms X’s CCA was not filed in accordance with the court order.
  11. An order was made for the CCA to be filed by 30 July. Ms X’s version was never filed.
  12. Solicitors for the parents asked on numerous occasions for the disclosure of the document referred to in Ms Walker Smart’s statement and for any documents prepared by Ms X.
  13. On 22 August 2013 Melanie Kingsley in response stated in an e mail: “an assessment was started by Ms X but not concluded. The decision was taken that because Ms X no longer works for the department, the new social worker SW would compile an entirely new assessment, as it would not be appropriate for her to complete another person’s partially completed piece of work. Accordingly Sarah Walker-Smart wrote and filed a new Core Assessment which is in this bundle. There is nothing outstanding from Ms X which may be filed with the parties”
  14. I am satisfied that this e mail gave a deliberate and entirely false impression. Kim Goode and Sarah Walker Smart knew that Ms X had completed her assessment. The problem was that Kim Goode did not like it. In her opinion it did not fit in with her assessment of the family’s circumstances. Kim Goode knew Ms X had completed it because she had changed it. Ms Walker Smart knew Ms X had completed it as she had seen the tracked changed document which was obviously based on Ms X’s completed work.
  15. I am also satisfied that the legal department knew of the existence of the Ms X piece of work as Ms Kingsley had referred to it in her e mail of 10 July.


[A quick break here to say “Holy F**ing s**t!”]


  1. Twice more did Ms Coates ask for Ms X’s “draft” to be filed and served. Ms Kingsley replied on 13 November 2013 “there is nothing that can be filed”. Again this was patently untrue.
  2. On 31 March 2014 Sarah Walker Smart commenced giving evidence before me. A transcript of her evidence is at 72.1 of the transcript section.
  3. She was asked in chief: “Have you ever seen a core assessment completed by Ms X? “No” “Can you explain the reference to one in your statement?” “.. there was an assumption that Ms X had completed a Core I relied upon an assessment that did not exist. That’s completely my error.” I then asked: “You have given the date of July 2013 which rather implies that you had some basis to believe that there had been a Core Assessment carried out. What was your factual basis for that?” Answer:” The team manager” Kim Goode, “assumed that Ms X had written one”.
  4. I asked whether Kim Goode had checked for the Core Assessment. I was told that she had and that she could not find it.
  5. Sarah Walker Smart went onto to say that she had not checked. She said: “I’ve never seen a Core Assessment in Ms X’s name.”
  6. I have considered this evidence very carefully and been mindful of the two fold test in the R v Lucas direction that I must give myself when encountering lies.
  7. I am satisfied that her evidence that she had never seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X was a lie. Sarah Walker Smart had seen a completed Core Assessment by Ms X. She had seen the tracked changed version e mailed to her by Kim Goode. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this was a deliberate lie to try to deflect attention from the existence of that document. I do not make this finding lightly or willingly but the evidence drives me to it. This lie was repeated in her evidence given to me on 25 November 2014.
  8. I am also satisfied that she lied when she said that the reference to such an assessment in her statement was a “mistake” based on an “assumption”. I am satisfied that the reason she mentioned it was because she had seen Ms X’s Core Assessment and she did not think there was anything wrong in referring to it. It was only afterwards that the import of what she had done became clear. In my judgment this is the only logical reason why she would have mentioned it. Her attempts to say it was a wrong “assumption” on the part of herself and Kim Goode was a fabrication. Again I do not reach this conclusion lightly but it is an inevitable one. Again she repeated this lie in evidence in November.
  9. Ms Walker Smart had the opportunity to disclose the existence of the Ms X assessment during the April part of this final hearing but did not take it. She chose to try to get away with the deception she had practised. I made it clear at the end of that hearing that I was worried about this issue and that I required full enquiries to be made to see if such a document existed. See 72.45 line 30 of the transcript of Ms Walker Smart’s evidence.
  10. Lisa Humphreys was also at court during the April hearing. She knew that the parents’ advocates wanted Ms X’s assessment disclosed and she knew of its existence yet she did not then or afterwards bring its existence to the attention of the court, the new social work team or the legal department. She could have accessed it easily as it was located in her ‘Outlook’ programme on her computer.
  11. The completed Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment was eventually disclosed inadvertently as part of the disciplinary proceedings’ file in relation to Ms X in early August 2014. Kim Goode had initiated disciplinary proceedings against Ms X as a result of what she saw were serious failings in her work. As a result Ms X was dismissed from her employment. Her health is now so poor that she was unable to give evidence. I do not know whether her poor health and the disciplinary proceedings are linked but they cannot have helped her. This is not the place to comment on the appropriateness of that investigation, its fairness or its conclusions but I do ask the LA to robustly review their conclusions and decision in the light of this judgment and all that is now known about this case.
  12. Kim Goode’s involvement in this deception was examined in the November hearing.
  13. I am satisfied she knew of Ms X’s completed CCA as she had changed it. I am also satisfied she knew that the parties and court wanted it disclosed and she had decided that she would not.
  14. At one point I asked her: “So it was a deliberate decision by yourself not to let the court and the parents have” the Ms X Comprehensive Core Assessment and the guardian. Is that right?” “Yes” she answered.


A second break to say again “Holy f**ing s**t!”



  1. Whilst she tried to persuade me that she did this out of concern for the children as she felt the assessment was not accurate, I find this suggestion breathtaking. This is a manager with 18 years experience deliberately flouting the lawful request of the parents for disclosure of information and more to the point flouting court orders for such disclosure. At one point she tried to suggest that she was unaware of the duty to disclose, which I find as Mr Ker-Reid put it “incredible” in both senses of the word.
  2. There was a particularly telling piece of cross examination by Mr Ker-Reid when he put this question to her: “You were overtly, determinedly, seeking to deceive courts of justice, put your head together with other professionals in your department, whether legal or social workers, to tell judges of the Family Court that there was not an assessment by Ms X which you knew there was? That is right is it not?” Answer: “It is but I..” Q: “It is”. Answer: … “gave the explanation”. Q: “We have your answer, done”.
  3. I am satisfied that this question and answer perfectly sums up the thinking of Kim Goode and her approach to this case. I heard Kim Goode’s “explanation” and I am not satisfied by it. Her perception of whether the assessment was correct or not was not a reason for non-disclosure particularly in the face of a Court order. It was as she conceded dishonest to have said that there was no assessment from Ms X. I am satisfied that this “explanation” was in fact an attempt to deflect blame away from herself.
  4. I have already commented on my impression of Ms Kim Goode from my observation of her in the witness box and from her work on this case. She is a strong personality and I am satisfied that those subordinate to her would find it hard to challenge her. This atmosphere is probably what led Ms Walker Smart into such grave error. Whilst this may be an isolated incident in her career I have very grave concerns as to Kim Goode’s working practises in this case and in my judgment a thorough review of her work and management style should be undertaken by the LA.
  5. I have made some comments about the involvement of Lisa Humphreys in this case. I found her to be a very strong and forceful personality. Whether her management style fed into or off Kim Goode I cannot say but I am clear that they are similar in management style. Subordinates would find it hard to say no to or challenge her.
  6. Her response to hearing of Ms Walker Smart’s lies to me was astounding. She thought it was “foolish”. I am afraid that is not the way I see it and it is not the way she should have seen it. Such a comment makes the lies seem like minor misdemeanours which they are not.
  7. I also found her failure to accept personal responsibility for what has happened in this case depressing. Whilst of course managers cannot be responsible for rogue employees and their decisions are only as good as the information they are given by their subordinates, they should at least sound as if they mean any apologies they give. The one she gave the parents during her evidence did not sound heartfelt and I noted that there was no apology to the Court for the lies that had been told or the unnecessary delay that had occurred by those under her. It is probable that she saw no harm in withholding the Ms X CCA as she seemed to me to be fully in support of withholding it, because in her view it was not an accurate piece of work.



Wow. Just wow.



  1. Conclusions and Findings on Human Rights breaches
  2. It follows from my conclusions above that this family’s Human Rights have been breached. The parties have produced one combined document for me to consider covering the breaches that the parents, A, B and the Guardian allege have occurred and the LA’s response to each of them. In short the LA has albeit late in the day, conceded all of the general breaches alleged and most of the specific facts that go towards those general conclusions. I have amalgamated the various breaches from this composite document and my findings and condensed them into a manageable form. My findings are as follows.
  3. Removal of the children on 17 July 2013
  4. The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully and disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 purportedly pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. I am satisfied that it did this by:
  1. a) Taking a decision to pursue police protection in preference to the provision of alternative accommodation;
  2. b) Failing to consider making an application for an EPO or short notice ICO;
  3. c) Failing to consider whether any family placements were available;
  4. d) Failing to inform the parents of the available options such as B&B
  5. e) Failing to encourage the parents to seek legal advice or the advice of family or friends;
  6. f) Acting without the Father’s informed consent to the removal;
  7. g) Acting without the consent (informed or otherwise) of the Mother;
  8. h) Acting without the consent of any person with parental responsibility for A and B;
  9. i) Purporting to act under section 20 of the Children Act by seeking the consent of the parents in the presence of 8 uniformed police officers presenting an overt threat of police protection;
  10. j) Acting in knowledge of the Father’s expressed belief that the police would act to remove the children in any event;
  11. k) Removing the children in circumstances which did not reach the test for an emergency removal;
  12. l) Purportedly justifying the removal at the time and subsequently by way of reasons which were incorrect and/or known to be untrue by the Social Worker namely that the home had been condemned; and
  13. m) Failing to obtain the wishes and feelings of the children contrary to section 20(6) of the Children Act 1989.
  14. n) Failing to have in place a policy document guiding procedures when social workers attend a family with police, such document having been directed by HHJ Levey DFJ to be produced in or about January 2013;
  15. o) Upon it becoming known to the Team Manager and/or District Service Manager that the Social Worker had acted disproportionately by removing the children from the care of the parents on 17.7.13 the LA should have taken steps to rectify matters by offering to reunite the children and parents in alternative accommodation but failed to do so.
  1. Failure to disclose material evidence
  1. The LA accepts and I find that it acted unlawfully by materially failing to comply with its duty to disclose documents which modified and/or cast doubt on its case and/or supported the case of the parents by:
  2. Failing to disclose the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X as directed as early as 15 July 2013 or at all prior to its inadvertent disclosure pursuant to a court order on 11.8.14 relating to disclosure of disciplinary proceedings concerning Ms X;
  3. Failing to disclose the ICS Core Assessments of Ms X as directed or prior to 1.4.14;
  4. Failing to disclose ICS notes with the District Service Manager’s comments due to inconsistent practices in recording information by her;
  5. Failing to disclose case recordings until directed to do so by the court on 3.3.14; and
  6. Failing to inform the parties of the existence of the video of the children’s removal and/or disclose the video itself until directed to do so by the court in May 2014. This video was in the possession of Kim Goode and viewed by her within weeks of the unlawful removal. She knew that the removal was unlawful but failed to do anything about it.
  7. The non-disclosure of the Comprehensive Core Assessment of Ms X in the face of repeated requests from the parties and directions of the court was deliberate and the decision not to disclose the document was known to Sarah Walker-Smart, Kim Goode, Lisa Humphreys and the Legal Department.
  8. The LA misled the court and the parties as to the existence of a Comprehensive Core Assessment undertaken by Ms X.
  9. In particular the LA does not dispute and I find that Sarah Walker Smart lied on oath on 31 March 2014 when she said she had never seen a core assessment completed by Ms X; that Kim Goode had looked for one and had not found one and that the reference in her first statement to such an assessment was therefore an error.
  10. Further, Sarah Walker-Smart repeated the lies on oath on 25 November 2014.
  11. The LA’s failure to comply with its duty of disclosure caused an incomplete picture to be presented to the Guardian and to the court within the LA’s evidence filed before 7.4.14.


  1. Denial of fair opportunity to participate in decision making
  2. I make the following findings in relation to this head.
  3. The parents were not consulted about the removal of the children.
  4. Neither the Court nor the parents were provided with the investigations and recordings which precipitated the applications to separate C from A and B or to apply for a section 34 order to “terminate” contact;
  5. In respect of the application to terminate contact, Hampshire County Council relied upon reports from foster carers upon which they did not seek the parents’ instructions. The foster carers’ reports were inconsistent with Hampshire’s own evidence such as contact supervisor recordings;
  6. Hampshire County Council undertook sibling assessments without discussing the children and their attachments with their parents, or indeed observing the children together;
  7. Hampshire County Council failed to convene a Family Group Conference or take any steps to explore potential family support, which led to their overlooking the Gs and issuing placement applications although the parents did not bring the existence of the Gs or their willingness to offer care to the attention of HCC until August 2014;
  8. It is alleged that the parents have been excluded from LAC and PEP reviews and all medical appointments for all of the children. I have not been addressed in submissions on this point and so can make no findings. If it is thought significant I will hear further submissions on this point;
  9. Hampshire County Council failed to provide the parents with contact notes and foster carer records in accordance with the Court’s direction or on a regular basis. This has deprived the parents of the ability to address any identified issues and effect change.
  10. Hampshire County Council had been “put on notice” of their Human Rights breaches by the order of 07.04.14 (A121); further order on 08.05.14 and Mother’s detailed skeleton argument setting out both limbs of her argument which was filed and served on 17.06.14. However, they continued to deny any wrongdoing until:
    1. On or about 10.11.14 in respect of the unlawful removal;
    2. On or about 14.11.14 in respect of the material non-disclosure. Indeed this was described by Hampshire on 29.07.14 as a ” last minute fishing expedition speculatively raised” [135].
  11. Failure to promote family life
  12. The LA breached the children’s right to family life by failing to set up or maintain regular family or inter-sibling contact during proceedings up until 31 March 2014.
  1. I am also satisfied that FC2 particularly Mrs FC2 became inappropriately attached to the children she was looking after. She allowed herself to become emotionally involved so that she tried to “claim” them for herself. This was not picked up upon by the social workers quickly enough. They were getting reports from FC2 that conflicted with the reports of their own contact supervisors yet this was not properly or timeously investigated. It was this failure to control FC2 that led to no proper inter-sibling contact taking place and E not seeing his parents for a considerable period of time.
  2. As a result of the failures of Hampshire County Council to provide all relevant material and to conduct the matter in an open and fair way, the care plans for A and B as presented to the court for the hearing commencing 31 st March 2014 were particularly distressing in that they provided not only for separation of the siblings but that for B he was to have very restricted contact with his parents and siblings; such care plans were wholly unjustified and were changed by the then Service Manager Lisa Humphreys on or about 1 st April 2014 it being noted that this was without the court or any party having heard any evidence on this issue.
  1. Other failures
  1. The evidence presented to the court in the statement of Sarah Walker-Smart dated 27.6.13 upon issue of the LA’s application and in support of its application for interim care orders was unfair in that it was unbalanced and in parts inaccurate.
  2. As conceded immediately in evidence by Ms Gibson the LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair assessment of the parents’ ability to care for the children by way of the assessment by the family centre worker and the social work assessment of Sarah Walker-Smart.
  3. The LA purported to but failed to undertake a full and fair sibling assessment in particular because they were undertaken without sibling contact being observed.



I have read law reports where Local Authorities have got things wrong. I have read law reports where Local Authorities have got things badly wrong. I have read law reports where they have been unfair, or stupid, or failed to act promptly, or acted in a knee-jerk way. I have read law reports where the Court disagreed with their recommendation and told them that they had badly misunderstood the law. But I’ve never read anything like this. It is utterly astonishing.  It is every conspiracy theory about what social workers do, come to life.

It is shocking, it is appalling. It is a damn scandal. It brings the profession into disrepute. The only tiny crumb of saving grace in the whole affair is that those involved were caught and that His Honour Judge Horton has shone a light into this scandal. I can only do my small part by telling my readers about it.


Back to this November 2015 judgment.  (I haven’t read the end of it yet, but I hope it ends in a whacking big cheque being written, or indeed the judgment being sent to the Attorney General)

The Judge had sent everyone away in December to conduct fresh assessments and also for the parents to be given therapy – there were problems with their parenting, but clearly in light of everything above, they had not been given a fair assessment.

There is a bit in the judgment about the mother clandestinely recording meetings with professionals (it is rather hard to blame her for doing that)


During the mother’s evidence she mentioned that she and F had covertly recorded a meeting with the Guardian and some contacts. The M had used her phone and F a digital recorder that looked like a slightly fat pen. He produced the pen recorder and 4 recordings. As the Court security staff had not come across such a device before I took steps to inform HMCTS of the existence of such devices. The recordings provided by F were not listened to by me and no one sought to rely on their contents.



Sadly, the assessment work with Symbol – an independent specialist assessment service had not gone as well as one might have hoped.  Against the backdrop of everything above, it is perhaps no surprise that the parents found it difficult to trust professionals.


         She [The Symbol worker] told me that it became clear that the parents have an absolute antipathy towards the LA and social workers to the extent that they even objected to Ms Hinton being involved in the assessment. In her and Symbol’s opinion it was an impossible task for the parents to work with or trust any professional which was a significant barrier to moving on. She said that whilst professionals were not challenging or agreeing goals, things went fine but when they tried to work with the parents the situation broke down “sharply, remarkably and quickly”. Anyone who attempted to monitor or change their parenting behaviour would she opined, meet great hostility.

116. She was criticised by the parents for not acknowledging properly or at all the enormity of the emotional toll and distress on the parents and the children caused by the events of the summer of 2013. In particular Symbol were criticised for not going through the judgment with the parents and not recording any discussion about these topics. If they had it was submitted, the parents could have ‘moved on’ and the assessment would not have stopped

The Judge spends several pages discussing the assessments and the evidence, and that I’m afraid would make an already long article too long. Sadly, he reaches this conclusion

 In my judgment it has not been evidenced that the parents have made the necessary changes that could allow them to make sustained improvements to their parenting styles or allow them to co-operate with professionals. Whilst they have demonstrated some ability to engage with therapy and have attended a parenting course they have not demonstrated that their fundamental attitude towards professionals has changed. Indeed I saw evidence during their oral evidence of their continued, deep seated mistrust and their tendency to accuse professionals of lying when challenged or disagreed with. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the failure of the Symbol assessment has reinforced in their minds that professionals cannot be trusted and this will make it even more difficult than before for professionals to work with them.

One can quite see how it would be extremely difficult for any parent to trust professionals after that December hearing – even with wholly fresh professionals to work with and therapeutic help, there was just too much damage done for the relationship to be repaired.

406. I am therefore satisfied that I must make care orders with respect to all five children to Hampshire County Council. I approve the plans for their placements as they are the plans that will promote the children’s welfare throughout their minority and protect them from significant harm. I am satisfied that no lesser intervention or order can achieve this aim due to the parents’ inability to work with professionals, in particular the LA.

It is very hard to feel comfortable about this. The Judge was clearly a Judge who was prepared to take on the Local Authority when they had been unfair and dishonest and who set up fresh and independent assessments and ensured that the parents got therapeutic help. So the parents got a fair hearing from the Court. But weren’t they just screwed by a system that says “you’ve got to work with professionals” and condemned them for not being able to, even though almost anyone in the same position would not have been able to trust again after the most shocking breaches of trust?  Very hard.

Even though I’ve had nothing at all to do with this case, or any of the sort of things that have happened in it and I never would, today is one of those days where I feel ashamed to even be part of the Family Justice system.

The damages bit hasn’t yet been dealt with. When I see the report of that, I will share it.

I was reminded by the parties that the parents and children have outstanding damages claims for the breaches of their Human Rights. As I indicated at the beginning of the hearing I have agreed with Hampshire’s DFJ that he should hear this part of the case. I will direct as part of the order arising from my judgment that a directions hearing be listed before him at his convenience.

417. I was concerned to learn that the three social workers who I previously criticised had not apparently been subject to disciplinary proceedings. I direct that my December judgment and this one be sent by the Director for Children’s Services to the Director of Social Services, Ofsted and those social workers’ supervisory bodies with a view to them considering whether further action against them is required.

I know that my commenters will want to talk about this case, and will probably be very cross about it. Please try to stay away from defamatory remarks (what the workers did in this case and what you think about it is fair game, what you think of them as people is for somewhere else, not here)

I also know that some of you will be wondering about perjury.  It is true that lying under oath is a criminal offence.  The police aren’t able to investigate perjury unless directed to do so by a Judge and a prosecution for perjury can only take place if the Attorney General authorises it

The Perjury Act 1911

1 (1)If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . F1 for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine

section 13 of the Perjury Act 1911, which sets out the corroboration needed to prove perjury can sometimes be difficult

A person shall not be liable to be convicted of any offence against this Act, or of any offence declared by any other Act to be perjury or subornation of perjury, or to be punishable as perjury or subornation of perjury, solely upon the evidence of one witness as to the falsity of any statement alleged to be false.


[I.e Victoria saying that Colin is lying is not sufficient, there needs to be something more. Here of course, there were the computer records and emails in addition. The criminal standard of proof is high, and perjury prosecutions are very rare. And I am no expert in criminal law, so the furthest I can go is to say that it is a possible case where the Atttorney General might have a decision to make if asked]


Misfeasance in a public office is the other one that comes up from time to time. Not a criminal offence, but a civil tort.  That’s probably not much use because the compensation for that would be something that could be awarded under the Human Rights Act for the breaches already found in any event.  Though it is possible that the damages would be higher.

[Watkins v Home Office 2006

There is great force in the respondent’s submission that if a public officer knowingly and deliberately acts in breach of his lawful duty he should be amenable to civil action at the suit of anyone who suffers at his hands. There is an obvious public interest in bringing public servants guilty of outrageous conduct to book. Those who act in such a way should not be free to do so with impunity.[1]

[1] [2006] UKHL 17, paragraph 8.  ]


And there’s the social work regulatory bodies who could be asked to take action. Social workers can and have been disciplined for bad conduct.

Totally radical, dude

"Put them in the Iron Maiden"

“Put them in the Iron Maiden”


The President has published guidance on radicalisation cases within the family Court, which you can find here:-


The Guidance says that ALL radicalisation cases are to be heard in the High Court, and that this specifically excludes Circuit Judges who have a section 9 ticket allowing them to sit as a High Court Judge. [UNLESS an actual High Court Judge explicitly releases an individual case to them]  The cases will purely be in the High Court.

To address the fact that this means that say, the family Judges in Luton would be oblivious to there being a major radicalisation problem in Luton because they won’t see any of the cases, the Designated Family Judge in each area must be notified of each application when they are made.


The guidance goes on

Judges hearing cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above will wish to be alert to:

(a) the need to protect the Article 6 rights of all the parties;

(b) the fact that much of the information gathered by the police and other gencies will not be relevant to the issues before the court;

(c) the fact that some of the information gathered by the police and other gencies is highly sensitive and such that its disclosure may damage the public interest or even put lives at risk;

(d) the need to avoid inappropriately wide or inadequately defined requests for disclosure of information or documents by the police or other agencies;

(e) the need to avoid seeking disclosure from the police or other agencies of information or material which may be subject to PII, or the disclosure of which might compromise ongoing investigations, damage the public interest or put lives at risk, unless the judge is satisfied that such disclosure is “necessary to enable the court to resolve the proceedings justly” within the meaning given to those words when used in, for example, sections 32(5) and 38(7A) of the Children Act 1989 and section 13(6) of the Children and Families Act 2014;

(f) the need to safeguard the custody of, and in appropriate cases limit access to, any sensitive materials provided to the court  by the police or other agencies;

(g) the need to consider any PII issues and whether there is a need for a closed hearing or use of a special advocate;

(h) the need to safeguard the custody of, and in appropriate cases limit access to, (i) the tape or digital recordings of the proceedings or (ii) any transcripts;

(i) the need to ensure that the operational requirements of the police and other agencies are not inadvertently compromised or inhibited either because a child is a ward of court or because of any order made by the court;

(j) the assistance that may be gained if the police or other agencies are represented in court, including, in appropriate cases, by suitably expert counsel.





This is a major issue, or potential issue.  Imagine for a moment that the X family come to the attention of the Police or the intelligence services. They are believed to be radicalising their child. That would, when shared with the Local Authority, give rise to the need for care proceedings being initiated, and possibly that an application be made for the removal of that child.  But imagine that the REASON the police or intelligence services have that concern is that they are monitoring the phone calls, text messages or emails of Mr Y, someone who is recruiting for ISIS.  They may very well prefer that the X family don’t learn that Mr Y’s emails are compromised, and that hence Mr Y is alerted and changes his phone, and email account.   Suppose that the REASON is not monitoring emails but that Mr Y has a colleague in the terrorist cell,  Mr Z who is actually clandestinely working with the intelligence services – that really could be a matter of life and death if the X family learned that Mr Z was a spy. Both for Mr Z and for the future intelligence that might save lives whilst he remains undetected. This is big stuff.


[If you ever watched The Wire, you’ll be familiar of the constant battle with the police and drug dealers to get the information from the phone taps but without tipping the drug dealers hand to the fact that their communications are compromised, and thus that the drug dealers would ‘change up’ their systems. And if you have never watched The Wire, then I recommend that you remedy that. ]


"Omar comin' ! "

“Omar comin’ ! “


This puts the debate into really clear terms – if there’s information that is relevant to the proceedings – for example those representing the parents are likely to want to know exactly why the parents are suspected of radicalisation and what the evidence-base is, but it might impact on national security, then the Judge is going to have to ensure that the disclosure requests are very focussed, and that if there’s to be an argument that the documents should not be disclosed, that a proper Public Interest Immunity hearing takes place which balances the article 6 arguments in favour of disclosure with the national security PII arguments.


Because let’s not foreget, that parents in this situation are entitled to a fair trial. The allegations or information might be a mistake, or malicious, or mistaken identity.  We can’t lose sight of the fact that it is the State who have to prove that these parents have radicalised the child, not for the parents to prove their innocence.

Where this happens in crime, the Judge generally sees the documents in order to conduct what is called an “Air Canada” exercise, to consider them on a line by line basis to see what can be disclosed and what might have to be withheld. You cannot assume that article 6 will trump national security always or vice versa, it will be very case and fact specific.   Might this procedure even eventually extend to police or intelligence witnesses giving evidence behind closed doors, with the parents not hearing it?  How do we feel about that?


It is worth noting that in this guidance, when the phrase “Special Advocate” is used, it may not be simply meaning a ‘specialised’ or ‘specialist’ advocate, but rather that at the hearing where the documents are considered and arguments deployed, that the Court would appoint a barrister specifically to make those arguments on the parents behalf – NOT the ones representing the parents in care proceedings, and ones who would not have a duty to share that information with the parents.  That would be a very big deal in care proceedings. It is somewhat controversial generally, but as far as I’m aware, we haven’t done it in care proceedings before.  [I’m not absolutely sure that we can even do it without a statutory basis or a strong precedent that it can be done. But I’m no expert on the Special Advocate jurisprudence]


The guidance continues


11 This is a two-way process. The court can expect to continue to receive the assistance it has hitherto been given in these cases by the police and by other agencies. But there must be reciprocity.

12 The police and other agencies recognise the point made by Hayden J  that “in

this particular process it is the interest of the individual child that is paramount. This

cannot be eclipsed by wider considerations of counter terrorism policy or operations.”

The police and other agencies also recognise the point made by Bodey J that “it is no part of the functions of the Courts to act as investigators, or otherwise, on behalf of prosecuting authorities … or other public bodies.” But subject to those qualifications, it is important that the family justice system works together in cooperation with the criminal justice system to achieve the proper administration of justice in both jurisdictions, for the interests of the child are not the sole consideration. So the family courts should extend all proper assistance to those involved in the criminal justice system, for example, by disclosing materials from the family court proceedings into the criminal process.

13 In the same way, the police and other agencies will wish to be alert to the need of the court for early access to information, for example, information derived from examination of seized electronic equipment, so far as such information is relevant to the issues in the family proceedings. Accordingly, the court should be careful to identify with as much precision as possible in any order directed to the police or other agencies: the issues which arise in the family proceedings; the types of information it seeks; and the timetable set by the court for the family proceedings.


I have been worried about the balance between confidentiality and national security on the one hand and fairness and article 6 on the other for a long while in relation to radicalisation. I think that it is helpful to have published guidance as to the very difficult issues that Judges dealing with these cases are faced with.  How they will be dealt with in practice is something I’ll be very interested to read about (assuming that I’m allowed to)

Funding of intermediaries

[See last blog]


An email came to me suggesting that it could be argued that rather than the Legal Aid Agency paying for the intermediary, it could come from HMCTS. I.e the Court pays.

Thinking of it in that way, it occurred to me that the President had floated in Q v Q the idea that HMCTS paying for a lawyer for an unrepresented person was analogous to HMCTS paying for interpreters or intermediaries. But I knew that the final conclusion in Q v Q was appealed when HH J Bellamy made such an order in Re K and H. So, does perhaps the Court of Appeal decision in Re K and H 2015 give us an answer on this?

I think that it does.


  1. As we have seen, in reaching his conclusion, the judge was influenced by the fact that HMCTS meets the cost of interpreters, intermediaries and the preparation of court bundles under the Financial Resources Regulations. He said that these are “aspects” of “representation” within the meaning of section 42 of LASPO. Section 42 defines “representation” as meaning “representation for the purposes of proceedings” and includes “the advice and assistance which is usually given by a representative in the steps preliminary or incidental to proceedings”. He considered that by analogy, HMCTS has the power to meet the cost of legal representation.


  1. I do not accept that interpreters or intermediaries are “representatives” within the meaning of section 42, still less that they provide the services of a legal representative. In In the Matter of D (a child) (No 2) [2015] EWFC 2, Sir James Munby said at para 17:


“The cost of funding an intermediary in court properly falls on Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service because, as the LAA has correctly pointed out, an intermediary is not a form of ‘representation’ but a mechanism to enable the litigant to communicate effectively with the court, and thus analogous to translation, so should therefore be funded by the court: see Re X, para 37 and C v Sevenoaks Youth Court [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin), [2010] 1 All ER 735, paras 26-27.”


  1. I agree with this. Nor do I see how the fact that HMCTS funds the preparation of court bundles from time to time sheds any light on whether the court has power to require HMCTS to fund the cost of legal representation.



For me, that seems to settle it. The LAA should not be asked to fund an intermediary, but instead it should fall on HMCTS. Re D is binding on most Courts as a High Court authority, and given that the Court of Appeal looked at it in Re K and H and agreed, it binds just about everyone.    The Court of Appeal specifically AGREED that the cost of funding an intermediary in Court properly falls on HMCTS.


So having identified a problem, I’ve accidentally solved it.

What I don’t yet know is whether the Court has a duty to provide the intermediary once a recommendation is made or whether the Court could press on without one. (remembering that whilst an expert recommends something, it is ultimately a matter for the Judge whether to accept that recommendation).

I don’t think that a Judge could say “I agree with Dr Nolan that an intermediary is required, but I am not going to order one because of X”  but that a Judge COULD say “Dr Nolan says that an intermediary is required – I have decided that it is not required because of X”.     It always makes me a bit uncomfortable the notion that a Judge (who is ultimately employed by HMCTS and to some extent accountable to them) has to decide whether HMCTS should incur expenditure.



Intermediary, fair trial and Legal Aid Agency


The High Court case of West Sussex CC v H and Others 2015 throws up an interesting issue.


This was a fact finding hearing, where the central allegation was that either mother or her boyfriend W, had caused a brain injury to a child who was two years old. The injury had at the time been life-threatening.


This is one of the most serious sorts of cases that come before the family Court. A finding that mother had caused that injury or failed to protect the child would have serious consequences for this mother’s prospects of keeping the children and possibly of any future children she might have. Also, the process itself would involve a lot of documents, some complicated issues and really forensic dissection of the events that happened that night, in a lot of detail.

The mother had undergone a cognitive assessment by Dr Nigel North, and he had concluded that she would need the assistance of an intermediary when giving evidence.

Intermediaries are used in criminal proceedings, and they play a very important part in making sure that a vulnerable witness can give the best evidence that they are able to.


The Registered Intermediary, having taken the intermediary oath, assists during the giving of evidence. They sit alongside the witness in the live link room (or stand next to them if they are giving evidence in court) in order to monitor communication. They intervene during questioning when appropriate and as often as appropriate in accordance with the ground rules and the recommendations in their report.   [taken from ]


However, though that was a clear recommendation and not challenged by anyone, she had to give evidence without an intermediary as the Legal Aid Agency had refused to fund one.


  1. The case was before me for case management on the 24th April 2015 and following the orders made on that day it was listed to be heard in July 2015. In addition to the complexity of the medical evidence there were concerns about the ability of M to fully participate in, and understand the proceedings because of a report by Dr Nigel North (a psychologist) dated the 6th March 2015 which recommended the use of an intermediary. The solicitors for M had applied for public funding for an intermediary assessment which was refused by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA). There followed attempts by the solicitors to appeal against this decision which were unsuccessful. By the time the solicitors approached the court for approval for funding an intermediary without a further assessment to support M during the trial in July there were none available to come to court.
  2. Given her history, which was never in dispute, it is not clear to me why it was considered necessary to have a further assessment by qualified intermediary except that Dr North is not an intermediary himself; the stance of the LAA did not assist when coupled with the insistence by Communicourt that they carry out an assessment separately from supporting Y at court. This led to the refusal of funding for that initial assessment. There is undoubtedly a pressing need for clear guidance and rules similar to those in criminal proceedings when it comes to the treatment of vulnerable witnesses. It is to be hoped that the proposed addition to the Family Procedure rules will come in to force sooner rather than later.


There would not have been a problem obtaining an intermediary in a criminal court*, but in a family court if the Legal Aid Agency say no, that’s the end of it.  [*I’m not a criminal lawyer, so I might be utterly wrong here and if someone more knowledgeable tells me otherwise, I’ll amend.  Of course in a criminal case, the Judge could throw the trial out for abuse of process if the LAA refused to provide an intermediary where one was necessary, and that’s a bit more difficult in family proceedings. You don’t want to decide family cases and the safety and future of children on a ‘technicality’]


Those involved in the case worked with the Judge, Russell J,  to come up with the fairest solution that they could.


  1. On the first day of the fact finding trial I heard a ground rules hearing to decide how the case could progress without the assistance of an intermediary taking into account the recommendations which had been made by Dr North. It was agreed that the trial could go ahead with frequent breaks to allow M to have time to consider the evidence broken up into shorter more manageable sections. There were to be breaks every 30 minutes or more often if needed. M’s evidence was to be similarly divided; she was to be asked short questions and cross-examined by one counsel only, who would agree the area of questioning with other counsel. Counsel for the local authority undertook this task with the assistance of the guidance provide by the ATC in their toolkit for family proceedings. As there were seven files of evidence the documents that M was to be referred to during her evidence were placed in one file; in addition it was agreed that she would be supported by someone she knew from her solicitor’s firm to find pages or if she needed any other assistance.
  2. M’s own mother L is a respondent to these proceedings as she had originally been named as a possible perpetrator and is closely concerned with the local authority’s future plans for the care of Y and X. She was able to offer M additional support throughout the hearing.



[The outcome of the case was that the Judge found that mother’s boyfriend W, had caused the injury but more out of carelessness or recklessness than by any intention to hurt the child  :-   I do not consider that there is evidence to support any suggestion that the impact was deliberately inflicted and consider it more likely that it was a reckless and foolish action taken by a young man who has no experience as a parent, primary or main carer of a child who is still very young.   There was no finding that the mother had done anything wrong  M’s conduct since that night has been congruent with a parent seeking an answer to what has happened to her child and has not been self-serving or defensive. ]



Strategy meetings


If you aren’t familiar with Strategy Meetings, they usually happen where there is a suspicious or unexplained injury to a child, and the medical professionals meet with the social worker and sometimes police, to gather together all of the relevant information and consider the options for going forward.


In this case, Re L  (application to withdraw ) (Head injuries : Unknown cause) 2015


they took on a particular significance.


A quick caveat – this case took place in my local Court, so of course I know some of the lawyers involved, and it was decided by my Designated Family Judge. I have had absolutely no involvement in the case (I never write about cases that I have had even a tiny part in) but of course it is much more easy to be dispassionate about the rubbish arguments deployed by Mr Edward Shirtsleeves and  Miss Rebecca Cufflinks of counsel when I’ve never met them and never will, rather than people who might concievably be in kicking distance of my shins from time to time.


Broad issues in this case were that in October 2014, a child presented to hospital with signs of head trauma. He was unwell at the time and has thankfully recovered.   A strategy meeting was held in November, and care proceedings were later commenced. The child was made the subject of an Interim Care Order and placed with an aunt.


At the final hearing, the Local Authority sought findings that the child had been shaken by one of his parents, suffering significant harm as a result.


After the medical evidence had been heard in those proceedings in June 2015, the Local Authority applied to the Court to withdraw their application.


  1. Essentially, the evidence of the experts and medical professionals was put to the test over those days, and by the conclusion of the medical evidence it had become clear to all those in this matter, including myself, that the local authority, who must prove their case against the parents, were in a position where it was highly unlikely that the evidence would support findings to the requisite standard against the parents and the threshold criteria would not be met in this single-issue case. I make it plain that there can be no criticism of the fact that the Local Authority issued proceedings here where there was clearly a prima facie case from the time L fell ill on the basis of the medical information which was supplied to them.
  2. Very properly in my judgment, and with exemplary good grace, the Local Authority made their application having taken stock of the evidence available to them at this point in the hearing.
  3. To found the basis for permitting the local authority to withdraw their application, I note the difficulties posed which have arisen in this unique case: some are serious, some perhaps less so, and some only visible with hindsight. There were gaps in the information available to the experts, and gaps in their own expertise as regards being able to come to clear understanding about what happened to L medically. There was, however, less uncertainty amongst the treating clinicians at Worthing Hospital as regards the cause of L’s head injuries at the critical point in time when life-changing decisions were to be made as regards his future, and I have concluded on all the evidence that this is something which requires careful exploration and recording in this judgment.
  4. L’s case and his long separation from the care of his own family will, I hope, contribute to a greater understanding of how the identified omissions which prevailed in this case might be avoided in future, though that may be poor consolation for his family.
  1. I have the weight of the expert evidence in this case as my yardstick to measure the identified omissions: it is difficult to imagine a more experienced and respected array of consultants with specialist knowledge, who have been stretched to and at times beyond their limits, but who have also provided valuable opinion in terms of their views of best practice. The case illustrates the position that there are limits to what can be achieved forensically.
  2. It is important that this judgment is seen as specific to the highly unusual case of L. Hindsight offers the court the opportunity to develop a counsel of perfection, but I am the first to acknowledge that this is unlikely to be achievable and practices vary and will always vary, and may be resource-specific. I can only do the best I can on what I have to go on in this matter with its very unusual features. The information about L which the experts had to go on was undoubtedly insufficient, and that in turn has left the court in the position where it cannot simply bypass their powerful evidence and return without more to the clinical picture available at Worthing Hospital to make findings, because such doubt has been cast upon L’s case as it was dealt with there. The information that there was what now appears to have been a very relevant differential diagnosis in relation to the cause of L’s injuries was available to the hospital, but it was not provided to the Local Authority at the outset of the case. The fact that there was a later differential diagnosis with a recommendation for further investigations related to L’s treatment was not fully conveyed to anyone in this case until the matter got to court.




If you are involved in a child protection case involving a head injury to a child or are a doctor who is involved in this area, I’d commend the entire judgment to you. It throws up a lot of really important practice issues, which are beyond the scope of this small(ish) piece.

You will see that although the Judge does not criticise the Local Authority for bringing the case to Court (and of course the Court when they made Interim Care Orders had to make the decision on the same information that the LA had),  we still end up in a situation where the parents were separated from their child for around seven months when they had done nothing wrong.


The mother was separated from her child for seven months. That is an almost unimaginable situation. I reaffirm the significance of this; of what she has missed out on in enjoying the first wonderful months of her child’s life and of what she must suffered as a result. She has lost her happy relationship with the father as well.


I think all of us could agree that this is intolerable. But what’s the solution?  One immediately cries out that the case must be heard more swiftly, but it is clear from reading this case that it was only by deploying a raft of very specialist experts that the true picture with all of its complexities emerged.  If someone had decided at the outset that the Court would reach a decision after say three months, those experts wouldn’t have reported and it is possible that the wrong conclusion could have been reached.


As Billy The Kid used to say,  “Speed’s fine, partner, but accuracy is final”

The other solution is not easy. Faced with an application for an Interim Care Order, with the treating medical professionals telling the Court that this child has been hospitalised as a result of one of his parents violently shaking him,  one is therefore asking a Court to take that risk on their own shoulders and keep the child and family together.  As we can see with the benefit of hindsight, that would have been the right thing to do on this occasion.  But ask yourself what would happen if a Local Authority (or a Court) decided that the medical evidence might later be proven wrong and left the child at home, where a second injury possibly more serious or life-threatening occurred?   How would Ofsted, the newspapers, the House of Commons, the public, react to that?

Part of the problem is that at the time when the social worker and then the Court has to make the decision about where the child should be whilst everything is investigated, that those cracks in the medical evidence haven’t yet appeared. It is only when ALL of the source material is available and looked at by people in painstaking detail, people with expertise, that you really get a sense of whether the evidence is unequivocal or whether this is a case with some real grey areas.

A Judge faced with an application for an Interim Care Order in those circumstances will know that there is a  risk of very serious injury but also that until all of the experts has reported we will not know whether the medical evidence is cast-iron or swiss cheese. Short of the parents going to live with another trustworthy adult or vice versa  (which is not really a practical solution for a seven month period of time), the risk can’t be absolutely protected against whilst the child is with the parents.  What’s the lesser of two evils here?

The way to keep the child at home with the parents is for the Judge to say “I know that there is risk here, I know that if it turns out that the medical evidence provided so far is right then these parents may have seriously harmed the child and may do it again, but experience has showed us that the only time one can be absolutely confident about the medical evidence is at final hearing when it is put to proof, so I am deciding that the risk should be taken in keeping this family with the parents, and I make that decision knowing that something could go wrong, no matter how much effort is put into a protection plan”.    And for a Court of Appeal to back a Judge up in that situation.

I would not pretend that this would be an easy thing to do.  If it goes wrong, the clamour would be for heads to roll and it would be a judicial head on the paraphet.


Anyway, back to the particular case.


Everyone was in agreement that the case should be withdrawn and the Court should find that the threshold was not met; but the issue was whether the Court should consider making a declaration under the Human Rights Act and possibly compensation   (although note that the Legal Aid Agency are currently stating that the Statutory Charge applies to such HRA compensation and it would all be swallowed up to repay legal costs)


The argument was twofold :-


1. That the medical professionals on the ground (not the Court appointed experts) had made serious mistakes which led to the child being removed and hence a breach of article 8

2. That the strategy meeting convened had been one at which a decision was made for the issue of proceedings, and thus was something that the parents should have been invited to, and failure to involve them was a breach of article 8 and article 6.


The Judge had been critical of some of the treating medical team on the ground, but was mindful that this was not, and could not purport to be a medical negligence case – the doctors had not been represented, nor had their Trust, and it was going outside the scope of the care proceedings to conduct that exercise.  The Court could go as far as it had, which was to identify practice areas for improvement and highlight failings, but apportioning blame was going too far.


The second point was developed more fully.


  1. I have been referred to Re R [2002] 1 FLR 755, Re L [2002] 2 FLR 730, Re G [2003] 2 FLR 42, where the protection offered by Article 8 was seen to extend to all stages of the decision-making process in child protection proceedings. [4]Re M [2001] 2 FLR 1300; Re S (Minors) [2002] 1 FLR 815; McMichael v UK [1995] 20 EHRR 205 and the injunction that: “Whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process leading to measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8.”
  2. In Re G, the importance of full and frank disclosure by a local authority was emphasised:

    i) Informing the parents of its plansii) Giving factual reasons

    iii) Giving an opportunity for parents to answer allegation

    iv) Providing an opportunity to make representations

    v) Allowing the parents the opportunity to attend and address any crucial discussions.

  3. I have also been referred to Re M (Care: Challenging Decisions by Local Authority) [2001] 2 FLR 1300 where parents were not present at a discussion where the decision was taken to place a child from adoption; Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730 for the premise that the case must be viewed as a whole and exclusion may not in itself render the proceedings unfair.
  4. S 47 of the Children Act 1989 governs the duty of a Local Authority to investigate. The relevant aspects of this section are:
  5. S47 (1) 1:

    (1)Where a local authority—………………

    (b)have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

    the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.. . .

    (2)(b)have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.

  6. In addition I have been referred to the Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures, published in March 2015. I have not been privy to this document hitherto. It contains a chapter on Strategy Discussions and Discussions, envisaged as a preliminary step before initiating a S 47 Enquiry, and when one is required, to plan how it should be undertaken. It provides guidelines for convening a strategy discussion or discussion. Discussions are advised in the case of serious physical abuse. It is identified as a “confidential professionals’ discussion” and participants are identified as a “professionals sufficiently senior to be able to contribute, although exceptional circumstances may arise where others may usefully contribute”. The relevant Consultant is highlighted as a required participant, as here.
  7. There is no requirement to include parents at such a discussion.
  8. In this case, I am faced with the tension between the need for a confidential professionals’ discussion to take place to which parents would not ordinarily be invited, and the argument that these parents should have been invited to contribute to that meeting, either for whole or part of it.


More detail about the Strategy Meeting followed



  1. (a) The Strategy Discussion
  2. In a case such as this, the decision to initiate a statutory s 47 inquiry (set out above) is taken following a strategy meeting held with relevant interested representatives of social services and external agencies such as the police, GPs and other medical personnel, schools, carers and, in appropriate cases, more specialised individuals. No more than and no less than that occurred in this case.
  3. The document generated by the meeting on 5th November is headed “Record of Strategy Discussion.” I see that It was called for as follows: “Referral from hospital this morning L had been admitted on two occasions. L has subdural bleeds of different ages. Suggestion non accidental injury. Possible shaken baby“.
  4. The proceedings hare was set running on what appears to have been the basis of the single clinical view provided at that meeting. There were a number of doctors at the meeting – Dr Cooke, Dr Kabole and Dr Shute in particular.
  5. These meetings are familiar to the Court. There is a protocol locally in operation across the three local authorities which sets out the normal parameters for such a discussion, which in short includes those who should “generally” be involved. It reads “all participants should be aware that a strategy Discussion/Meeting is a confidential professionals meeting and as such, notes of the meeting should not be shared within anyone without the permission of the chair”.
  6. It was chaired by Amanda Cole but I do not know who made the record. Its accuracy has been explored by the parties with Dr Hazell who gave her input over the phone. I have to say that the list of negatives does not quite coincide with Dr Hazell’s more nuanced evidence but I make nothing of that.
  7. The Social Worker Ros Sims told the court in her statement that L’s injuries were confirmed at the strategy meeting by the consultant paediatricians who attended as non-accidental injuries and consistent with L having been shaken and have resulted in the significant harm that has been medically evidence. The entire case stood on the information available to West Sussex County Council. It was the only thing which supported his removal. The initial stated belief of the local authority was that “L had experienced significant harm from one or more of his carers”.
  8. It was known that the parents were to be arrested and interviewed because it is recorded. The only planning in relation to further action by the local authority was that they were to make a decision regarding legal proceedings. In Re G [2003] 2 FLR 42 the first of the identified requirements upon a Local Authority is to inform parents of their plans. The recorded plan was to move to a decision in relation to legal proceedings. That is all.
  9. The issue is whether in this case, as distinct from other cases where parents would not normally be included in a confidential professionals meeting,[                 and                    ]should have been invited.
  10. Mr Storey argues that on the basis of Re G, where the protection offered by Article 8 was seen to extend to all stages of the decision-making process in child protection proceedings, this particular strategy discussion should be considered as part of that inclusive roll call to say that he fact that the mother and father were not invited to the Strategy Discussion was an incursion into that right because to was a decision to separate the mother from the child.
  11. Looking again at that decision. I am mindful that what has to be determined is whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and notably the serious nature of the decisions to be taken, the parents were involved in the decision making as a whole, to a degree sufficient to protect their interests. If not this would amount to a failure to respect their family life and the interference resulting from the decision will not be capable of being regarded as “necessary” within the meaning of Article 8.”
  12. Mr Storey takes that decision at its highest, and sets it as the first rule in every case, to mean that this particular decision was part of the trial process and the parents were entitled to participate without qualification. If that is the case, then potentially parents would be entitled to be present at every strategy discussion, and the essentially confidential nature of the discussions would be lost.
  13. Like the experts in L’s case I am really hampered. All I have are the recordings. All I know is that the wheels had been set in motion prior to that meeting because there was a plan to arrest the parents and the social workers were going to refer the case to their legal department. It was technically not a decision to separate the parents from L, as far as I can tell from the notes. They are not likely to reflect the whole of the discussions. However I do not have the benefit of the evidence of those present: they have not been required to set out their evidence as to what occurred and why.



That did make matters difficult.  The Judge distilled the HRA argument into a central question


To reach any conclusion as regards an infringement of the parents’ rights due to not being invited, a court would at the very least have to ask the following question; Was the omission to invite the parents to a confidential professionals’ discussion, where the case was extremely serious in terms of what was being advanced medically, where their accounts appear not been given to the discussion, an infringement?


The Judge goes on to say, that understanding that the HRA point was developed once it became clear that the medical evidence was less solid than it would have appeared at the outset of the case, that there were important evidential matters which would have been needed to be obtained and put to witnesses before the Court could properly make that decision.


  1. The evidential basis for answering those questions with care and fairness is not available to me. To really understand what occurred and why, a court would at the very least need a detailed response from the local authority, and evidence from the key participants which could be fairly and properly tested. I cannot therefore take this point any further.
  2. What does concern me however is the medical information which was given then and later which tended so strongly to characterise this case as a case of inflicted injury as opposed to there having been another possible identifiable cause as of 4th November and indeed throughout. That alternative possibility has never gone away during this case. The Local Authority assumed that to be the only available diagnosis at the start of the case and the court only had the single view upon which to proceed.


The Court also expressed disquiet about the medical information provided at that meeting, most notably that it was not communicated to the Strategy Meeting that at least one treating doctor had considered that there was a medical explanation for the injury due to an unusual clinical feature that might give rise to a differential diagnosis  (i.e that there might not have been an injury at all, but rather some sort of medical episode)


I know not whether those involved intend to leave it at that, or whether a stand-alone HRA claim will be lodged.


For the moment, the answer to the question  “Is it a HRA breach to have a strategy meeting which might result in very critical decisions being made for a family if the family aren’t present?”   is  “it might be”  –  and at the very least, this case has made us all think rather harder about the issue.



IS v Director of Legal Services 2015

Many other people will be writing about this case, but I’ll just give the bit for the family lawyers and Court of Protection lawyers (since it touches on capacity cases). Really important for the battles that have been fought since LASPO to say that it is being interpreted by the Legal Aid Agency in a way that, as Mostyn J put it


“sacrifices individual justice on the altar of public debt”


[which is approvingly cited in the case. Hell yeah]


This is of course, the case about whether the Legal Aid Agency were properly using their discretion on granting public funding for cases where to represent yourself would put you in a position where your human rights would be breached, i.e section 10 LASPO. The LAA lost. They intend to appeal.


The really important bit for family law cases is paragraph 40



It is difficult to imagine a family case, particularly when there are contested issues about children, in which there would not be an interference with the Article 8 rights of either parent or the children themselves. Thus unless the party seeking legal aid could albeit unrepresented present his or her case effectively and without obvious unfairness, a grant of legal aid would be required. That does not mean that every case will require it: some may be sufficiently simple for the unrepresented party to deal with. Obviously if there is a lack of capacity even such cases may require legal aid. That issue I will have to consider in further detail later. But I am bound to say that I believe that only in rare cases, subject to means and merits if properly applied, should legal aid be denied in such cases. As it is now applied, the scheme is clearly wholly deficient in that it does not enable the family courts to be satisfied that they can do justice and give a fair hearing to an unrepresented party. While the problem may perhaps be less acute in other civil cases, I have no doubt that the difficulties I have referred to in family cases apply.


You can’t really have a much clearer message than that to say that the low rate of s10 LASPO public funding applications being granted, and the tests and guidance being applied by the LAA are wrong. Scandalously wrong.


Paragraph 80 also good  – that the process of making an application is made unnecessarily difficult, and this, combined with the poor success rate has had the obvious effect of discouraging such applications from being made.


The main problem lies in the forms which are prescribed. They are far too complicated and are not at all helpful to lay persons. Providers have difficulties with them and the small level of grant has unquestionably, on the evidence which has not shown to be erroneous, led to the unwillingness of providers to take on clients who need to apply for ECF. The scheme is not properly providing the safety net which s.10 is supposed to provide. It is to be noted that it was anticipated that some 5,000 to 7,000 applications would be made in a year. The actual rate was a fraction of that. The defendants say that the figures they relied on were only estimates for planning purposes. In a letter of 20 August 2013 the MoJ stated that the figures were based on the number of grants estimated in the LASPO consultation exercise, namely 3,700. It is significant that the scheme has not produced anything like that number of grants, let alone applications. Furthermore, as the OS has indicated and a number of applications dealt with in the statements confirm, the hurdle erected for those who lack capacity is far too high. Those who are unable to pay for legal assistance are suffering in a way that Parliament cannot have intended.



And final flurry of killer blows

  1. As will become apparent, I think that there must be changes to the scheme. The ECF application forms are far too complex for applicants in person. Separate forms should be provided. Indeed, overall the test set out in R(G) can be set out in the form and applicants or providers can then be required to give full details of the need for legal assistance by producing all existing material relevant to the application. As I indicated, what is put on the website can surely be put on a form. Consideration must be given to provision of Legal Help to enable providers to do work to see whether a client has a case which should be granted legal assistance because it qualifies within s.10 of the Act. No doubt the LAA will be entitled to decide whether any such application is reasonable since a provider must satisfy himself that there is a possible need for legal assistance on the basis of preliminary information given by the client and any relevant documents provided. Legal Help does not require a prospect of success test.
  2. The rigidity of the merits test and the manner in which it is applied are in my judgment wholly unsatisfactory. They are not reasonable.
  3. As will be clear, I am satisfied that the scheme as operated is not providing the safety net promised by Ministers and is not in accordance with s.10 in that it does not ensure that applicants’ human rights are not breached or are not likely to be breached. There is a further defect in the failure to have any right of appeal to a judicial body where an individual who lacks capacity will otherwise be unable to access a court or tribunal.



I don’t know about you, but I find  something shameful about a Ministry of Justice being condemned by a Court for their part in devising a scheme that deprived individuals of justice in order to assauge public debt. And similarly something shameful that a body whose job it is to ensure that people have access to legal representation and advice going out of their way to prevent them getting it.

But then, these are bodies who in their response to the criticisms laid against them by the Justice Select Committee of Parliament with comments like  “The Court did not rule that our policy was wholly unlawful” as though that was something that a Ministry of Justice should actually boast about.


Which reminds me rather of Steve Coogan’s pool attendant from the Day Today



Court of Appeal say no judicial power to order Court to pay for legal costs


Very grateful to Noel Arnold of Coram Legal Child’s Centre for alerting me to this.  You may be aware that post LASPO, there will be parents who will have to represent themselves in court proceedings who would previously have got free legal representation.

The Courts have been concerned for some time about cases in which it would seem to be a breach of article 6 to make a parent represent themselves, and particularly where that would involve a parent cross-examining a child or their former partner about abuse.  The provision in LASPO SHOULD capture those cases and grant exceptional funding where there’s a potential breach of human rights, but in practice it just isn’t happening.

The President has done a few of these cases and pushed the Legal Aid Agency to the brink, by saying that if they didn’t provide funding, he would order that the costs of legal representation should be paid by the Court. Up until now, the Legal Aid Agency have folded (but only in the cases before the President, which is not ideal)

Well now, in Re K-H (children) 2015, they didn’t fold, the Court made an order that a lawyer be provided and paid for by the Court service. The Lord Chancellor appealed it. And the Court of Appeal agreed that there was NO POWER to do that.


That leaves us all in a mess. The only thing that the Court can really do now is give a judgment that it would be a breach of article 6 to proceed – but where does that leave the case?  Can the Court make a decision that the Court itself has breached father’s article 6 rights and make an order that the Court pay compensation?  (allowing the money to then be used by the father to pay a lawyer?)   Almost certainly not.

I can’t get the link to the judgment to work at present to chew over the detail, but here is the Children’s Legal Centre summary.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,002 other followers