There’s a CPS protocol about Disclosure of information in cases of alleged child abuse
I really do know that there’s too much guidance and directives, and strategy initiatives descending on us, because it has taken me a week to force myself to open the document. But then I remembered the unofficial motto and raison d’etre of the Suesspicious Minds blog , which is “I read this stuff, so you don’t have to”
So, I’ll read it and give as short a summary of it as I can bear. It all kicks into lively exciting being on 1st January 2014 (I’m really not selling this much, sorry)
Police to care proceedings
1. There’s a form in there (oh goody, another form) at Annexe D, for a Local Authority to fill in and send to the police, to get disclosure within 14 days. That sounds as though it won’t be necessary to have a court order to seek the disclosure. [though they might redact, or keep info back if it would prejudice the investigation)
2. The CPS are apparently going to give priority to making charging decisions in cases of alleged child abuse where there are linked care proceedings (so perhaps no more waiting to see how our finding of fact hearing panned out before they make that decision)
3. Restrict the requests to relevant material from the police, not a big fishing trawl through everything they’ve got. Expect to see disclosure requests being more narrowly drawn.
4. Where there are no criminal charges brought, the police will let the LA know and give reasons
Care proceedings to police
1. The LA are to let the police know of care proceedings relating to alleged child abuse [again on a form in Annexe D] – that might be a bit broad, I would tend to construe it as care proceedings where the allegations could consititute a criminal offence where the child is a victim [I can’t imagine that the intention would be to alert the police of every care case that arises as a result of heroin misuse, for example]
2. The LA let the police have their files, or access to them, expeditiously – but NOT docs filed in the care proceedings*, and let the police know what schools the children attend. ( *They mean docs created expressly for the purpose of court, and say that for example medical report on the injuries which existed before proceedings but were filed within them, can still be given to the police)
3. the LA can provide the police with docs from the care proceedings PROVIDED it is for the purpose of child protection, not the investigation of the criminal offence – but the police can’t USE this in criminal proceedings (including showing it to the CPS) without permission from the Family Court. (That’s a change, since often the HAVE/USE distinction is viewed to allow the police to show the doc to the CPS to aid in charging decision/decisions about whether to make a full-blown disclosure application)
4. If the police/CPS want to make use of court docs from the family proceedings, they will make a formal application – though the guidance is that they won’t actually attend a hearing for that application unless the Judge directs them to, raising the spectre of four parties in the care proceedings rocking up once to say “we object” and then again a week later for the argument.
5. the LA must send to the police/CPS any transcribed judgment (redacted if necessary) that they get in relation to a case of this kind, and should ask the family court to expedite it where it is known that parallel criminal proceedings are ongoing/contemplated
6. There’s provision for Public Interest Immunity applications (I used to do those a lot, until the criminal courts thankfully determined that it wasn’t a DUTY to assert PII all the time, and the LA could restrict the applications for issues which were particularly vital or delicate that there was a wider public interest in not having social services docs get into the criminal proceedings) – these days, it is only likely to be info on children who are not victims or anonymous referrers identity which is the subject of a PII consideration.
Linked directions hearings
This is actually new – I’ve done it once or twice in particularly tricky cases, but now there is a protocol which allows the Judge in either limb to consider whether it would be helpful to have a joint directions hearing of the care and the crime, so that any issues /conflict can be thrashed out. If you were wondering, us family lawyers have to go to the criminal court – the people in wigs and gowns can’t travel to us. The directions hearings will be linked, but not combined (there are some tricky differences in law and procedure that means just having a joint hearing is not possible). In effect the care people all go into the criminal one and listen, and then if necessary the crime people or some of them will ask to come into the care hearing.
Despite my reluctance to read it, it isn’t actually bad, and not as long-winded as it could have been. Nothing immediate springs to my mind as a terrible omission (apart from the guidance being utterly silent as to whether the police can charge for disclosure, which we were promised would be going away. One could argue that given that the guidance doesn’t say that they CAN, that means they CAN’T. But no doubt those arguments will continue over the next few years)