RSS Feed

Category Archives: case law

Keehan as mustard ? Costs order against Lord Chancellor

 

Just when you think you’ve seen it all regarding Human Rights damages claims tacked onto care proceedings and costs, Keehan J delivers this curveball.

 

Re H (A minor) v Northamptonshire CC 2017

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/282.html

 

And we’re now seeing two High Court Judges waving to each other from opposite sides of the Grand Canyon on this. On one side, Keehan J is doing everything possible to make sure that the parents get their damages un-gulped up by the Legal Aid Agency and the stat charge, and on the other, Cobb J is saying that Parliament set up the stat charge in this way and if they’d intended to make an exception for the stat charge applying on care proceedings so that all the damages got swallowed up, they’d have done that. And that damages aren’t always the answer anyhow.

(Keehan J is playing a Lord Denning type role here, in manipulating and coaxing the law into shapes like a Venetian glassblower to get to the morally right outcome. I think myself that Cobb J is right in law, but who knows until the Court of Appeal tell us?)

 

The stat charge is tricky to understand here, so here’s an analogy.

Larry goes to a restaurant. As he is leaving, he steps on a woman’s foot. He shouldn’t have done it, he was being careless. He apologises, and offers to buy the woman a drink. She’s happy with that solution. The restaurant manager, however, says  “This woman ate a 3 course meal here for free tonight because she had a voucher, but that cost me money. So if you want to pay for a drink for her, that’s fine, but you have to give me all of the money that her food would have cost. If you don’t want to do that, you can just give me the money for the drink, but she get no drink and no money”

 

(Parents get free legal aid in care proceedings, even if they are millionaires. But if they win any money from a ‘connected’ case – even if that is damages for being badly treated, that money goes FIRST to pay back the legal aid agency not just in the case where they won the money but ANY legal aid they’ve had. Even though it was ‘free’. Only if there’s anything left does the parent get anything.  Because the legal costs in the care proceedings will usually dwarf the damages (just as a 3 course meal is more expensive than a drink), the only way that the parent can get any money is if the costs are paid too. And that’s tricky, because the law on costs is very clear that there are limited circumstances in which that is possible.

 

(The Kirklees blog spells all of that out, but I thought people might welcome an easier solution)

 

In this case, the parents had encountered a breach of their human rights, relating to section 20 abuse (but even this now, may be overtaken by the Court of Appeal guidance in the Hackney case where they suggest that failure to follow the guidance on s20 isn’t automatically a human rights breach). The LA made an offer to settle, and the parents lawyers understandably wanted to know, before they accepted or refused it, whether the parents would get that money, or whether it would be swallowed up by the Legal Aid Agency.

The LAA initially told them that the stat charge would bite and gobble up all of the damages. They then changed their mind, faced with being told that they’d be joined as a party to the High Court proceedings to fight that out.

It was submitted by the Lord Chancellor that HRA damages should be assessed without regard to the fact that the claimant is legally aided. I agree and accept that the assessment of the quantum of damages in a HRA claim should be made without regard to the fact that the claimant is legally aided. Where I part company with the Lord Chancellor is in respect of the submission that the impact of the statutory charge on the extent to which the claimant will receive any part of the damages awarded is irrelevant to a court assessing damages and then considering whether to make consequential orders for costs. I emphatically disagree.

 

(This is the exact opposite of Cobb J’s conclusion in the Kirklees case)

A very cunning scheme was devised, making use of CPR  rule 46.2  (That noise you hear is every family lawyer in the country shuddering at the mention of the Civil Procedure Rules. It gives us the same visceral reaction as the idea of standing up and addressing the Stade Francais in our schoolboy/girl French)

 

“46.2.— Costs orders in favour of or against non-parties

(1) Where the court is considering whether to exercise its power under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (costs are in the discretion of the court) to make a costs order in favour of or against a person who is not a party to proceedings, that person must—

(a) be added as a party to the proceedings for the purposes of costs only; and

(b) be given a reasonable opportunity to attend a hearing at which the court will consider the matter further.

(2) This rule does not apply—

(a) where the court is considering whether to—

(i) make an order against the Lord Chancellor in proceedings in which the Lord Chancellor has provided legal aid to a party to the proceedings;

(ii) make a wasted costs order (as defined in rule 46.8); and

(b) in proceedings to which rule 46.1 applies (pre-commencement disclosure and orders for disclosure against a person who is not a party).”

 

 

And the scheme here was complex (and I don’t think anyone will ever get away with it again, so I’m not going to spell it out in detail) –  the parents get the damages, the LA pay the costs. The Court then ordered the Lord Chancellor to pay MOST of the LA’s costs, to compensate them for the fact that it is only the Lord Chancellor failing to waive the stat charge in this case (which she has the statutory power to do) that led to the LA having to pay the costs.

There’s very little in law that I enjoy more than the Lord Chancellor losing in Court – a pleasure I did not get tired of during Chris Grayling’s wondrous tenure, and though Liz Truss hasn’t been in post long, she hasn’t really done herself any favours, so this is a fun read (though very very technical)

But I don’t think it is an entirely safe decision.

 

Firstly,

 

  • The local authority is forcibly critical of the second email sent on behalf of the LAA by Mr Rimer on 22 December. Mr Tyler submitted that the position of the LAA as set out in that email, namely that the statutory charge would apply to any damages awarded to H in respect of costs incurred under his public funding certificate in respect of the care proceedings, was clear and unequivocal. In his and Mr Mansfield’s skeleton argument it is asserted:

 

“48. The LAA has inappropriately – almost certainly unlawfully – sought to recoup the cost of the provision of the ‘non-means, non-merits’ legal aid available for the claimant from the award of damages to which he is entitled due to the breaches of his human rights.

49. Only at the eleventh hour – and when faced with the prospect of a High Court trial on the issue – has it adopted an approach which is correct in law.

50. In so doing, it has caused the unnecessary attenuation of both the HRA and the care proceedings.”

 

 

Okay, those are submissions and not the judgment, but I don’t think you can properly conclude that the LAA was unlawful in following the LASPO provisions. The provisions are stupid and ugly and unkind and mean-spirited, but they are lawful provisions. There isn’t (yet) a section 6 challenge that the LASPO provisions in this regard are themselves incompatible with the HRA. It would be interesting to see the outcome if someone takes it that far – LASPO is far from beloved as a piece of legislation.

The point, I presume is making use of Keehan J’s previous side-step of the stat charge by claiming that the HRA proceedings ‘are not connected’ to the care proceedings.  I am afraid that I am with Cobb J on that – there may be occasions when the damages case is genuinely ‘not connected’ to the care proceedings, but these clearly were.

 

Glad you're back George

Glad you’re back George

 

 

But more importantly

 

  • Ms Stout’s principal submission was that the court had no power, on the facts of this case, to make an order for costs. She relied upon the provision of the CLA(C)R 2013 and in particular on Part 3 and regulations 9(1), 9(2) and 10. In a case where one party is legally aided (i.e. the claimant) and one party is not legally aided (i.e. the local authority) she contended that the effect of regulation 9(2) was that an order for costs could only be made against the Lord Chancellor if all the conditions set out in regulation 10 are satisfied.
  • It is common ground between the parties that the conditions of this regulation are not satisfied in this case.

 

So not possible to make the costs order against the Lord Chancellor, because the power to do so sets out a condition that has to apply and the condition doesn’t.

That wasn’t the end of it though

  • I regret I do not accept the submission that the court does not have the power to make a costs order against the Lord Chancellor in this case. I so decide for the following reasons.
  • The provisions of s.26 LASPO only apply where costs have been awarded against a legally aided party. In these circumstances the order for costs “must not exceed the amount (if any) which it is reasonable for the individual to pay having regard to all the circumstances …”: s.26(1) LASPO. A s.26(1) costs order “means a costs order against a legally aided party where cost protection applies”: reg.2(1) CLA(C)R 2013. The phrase ‘cost protection’ means “the limit on costs awarded against a legally aided party in relevant civil proceedings, set out in section 26(1) and (2) of the Act: reg.2(1) CLA(C)R 2013. All of these provisions are based on a costs order having been made against a legally aided party. In this case, of course, no order for costs has been or will be made against the claimant.
  • The only possible basis on which the Lord Chancellor’s submissions on this issue could succeed is if I interpret s.26 LASPO and the CLA(C)R 2013 to mean that it applies if there is the ‘potential’ for a costs order being made against a legally aided party. The clear wording of the section and the regulations simply do not permit such an interpretation.
  • Regulation 9 of CLA(C)R 2013 is headed ‘Effect of this Part’. Regulation 9(1) provides that ‘This Part applies where cost protection applies’. If I insert the clause set out in Reg 2(1) for the definition of ‘cost protection’, reg.9(1) would read ‘This Part applies where the limit on costs awarded against a legally aided party in relevant civil proceedings set out in section 26(1) and (2) of [LASPO] applies’. Cost protection does not apply in this case and thus the provisions of Part 3 of the CLA(C)R 2013 do not apply in this case, most especially regulation 9(2).
  • It is plain that regulations 9 and 10 apply in respect of the Lord Chancellor as the funder of legal aid to a party to civil proceedings. Reg.10 only applies where ‘proceedings are finally decided in favour of a non-legally aided party’. It is designed to provide recompense to that party, in specified and limited circumstances, where there is a shortfall between the costs incurred by that party and the limited costs which the legally aided party is ordered to pay, in consequence of which the non legally aided party will suffer financial hardship. Once again those circumstances do not arise in this case.
  • I am completely satisfied that

 

(a) the CLA(C)R 2013 has no application or relevance to this case; and(b) they do not preclude the court from making a costs order against the Lord Chancellor in appropriate circumstances, still less do they provide the Lord Chancellor with a ‘blanket immunity’ against an order for costs as a third party or otherwise.

 

 

Keehan J summoned up the spirit of JPR Williams and  David Duckham and jinks and weaves to make his side-steps work. It is beautiful to watch.  But I think there’s a forward pass in there somewhere.

 

 

Human rights, damages and costs – important case

Not sure this is the last nail in the coffin of HRA damages claims piggy-backing on care proceedings, but the bag of nails certainly isn’t full any more.

Be grateful it is nails. As the LA is Kirklees, I've been trying to think of a Shatner reference...

Be grateful it is nails. As the LA is Kirklees, I’ve been trying to think of a Shatner reference…

 

The High Court have given judgment in Re CZ (Human Rights Claim:Costs) 2017

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/11.html

 

The fact that there was a breach is impossible to deny and the LA accepted it. (Even looking at the recent steer from the Hackney authority that failure to follow guidance does not amount without more to an actionable claim, this one goes far beyond that)

12.CZ was born by emergency caesarean section at X Hospital on 6 November. It was a traumatic birth and CZ was for a short time placed on the Special Care Baby Unit (‘SCBU’). The baby was slow to feed, and showed temporary normal post-birth weight loss. That said, no child protection concerns were raised by the staff on SCBU nor on the ward to which he was discharged.

13.On 10 November 2015, the Local Authority received a referral from the X Hospital maternity ward; concerns were raised regarding the long-term parenting capacity of this mother and father. It was suggested that the mother had no family support, and that the father was expressing unorthodox views about the need for sterilisation of bottles, and the benefits of formula milk. It was nonetheless noted, in the referral, that the paternal grandmother of the baby was being supportive to the couple and was planning to move in with them at least in the short-term after discharge from hospital.

14.On the following day, 12 November 2015, the maternity ward staff reported to the social worker that CZ had put on weight, but that they remained concerned about the feeding plan and wished to monitor him further. The social workers did not visit on this day.

 

15.On 13 November 2015, the social worker visited the hospital at about lunchtime and was advised by staff that CZ had again gained weight; the staff had no further concerns about the baby, who was reported to be well enough to be discharged. This was, indeed, planned for later that day.

The LA made an application on 13th November 2015 on short notice to Court for an ICO. The parents did not attend that hearing. The LA assured the District Judge three times that the parents had been informed of the hearing. They also assured the District Judge that the parents agreed with the plan for the child to be placed with grandparents. A Guardian did not attend (the LA emailing CAFCASS minutes after the hearing apologising for forgetting to notify them)

 

It turned out that the parents had NOT been informed of the hearing. They had been told by the social worker that the LA planned to start care proceedings but not that there was a hearing imminently and when it was. Whilst the mother had agreed s20 accommodation, the father had not.

At a hearing on 20th January 2016, the parents through their solicitors gave notice that they wanted to challenge the ICO. At a hearing on 27th January 2016, the LA attended and set out that they did not consider that the threshold criteria was met any longer and sought to withdraw their application. The proceedings ended and the child returned to the parents.

The HRA claim was made on the basis of breaches of article 6 and article 8.

33.The Local Authority concedes that I should make the following declarations:

  1. i) It breached the parents and child’s right to a fair trial, pursuant to Article 6 ECHR when it failed to inform them and/or Cafcass of the urgent hearing which was held at 3p.m. on Friday 13 November 2015; this breach is compounded by the fact that the Local Authority repeatedly informed the court that the parents had been so notified;
  2. ii) Between 13 November 2015, and, at the latest, 7 December 2015 (the next hearing date), the Local Authority breached the rights of those named above to a family life as enshrined in Article 8 ECHR. The parents did not live in the same household as their son for that period albeit they enjoyed extensive contact to one another. The child was placed with the paternal grandparents in their home.

These concessions were made at an early stage of the process, and were shared with the court on 14 July 2016,

 

Cobb J ruled that :-

41.In this case, I am satisfied that the breaches of the Claimants’ ECHR rights were serious, a view which I expressed in the presence of the lay parties at the hearing. This was plainly not an exceptional case justifying a ‘without notice’ application for removal of a baby from the care of his parents (see Re X (Emergency Protection Orders) [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam), and it is questionable whether there was a proper case for asserting that CZ’s immediate safety demanded separation from his parents at all: Re LA (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 822. The failure of the Local Authority to notify the Claimants that the hearing was taking place on the afternoon of 13 November was particularly egregious; misleading the District Judge no fewer than three times that the parents knew of the hearing aggravates the culpability yet further. This infringement will rightly be subject of a declaration of unlawfulness (see above), and to a very great extent this represents the essential vindication of the right which they have asserted.

42.The separation of a baby from his parents represents a very substantial interference with family life, and requires significant justification. In this case, my assessment of the seriousness of the interference has been moderated by two facts: first, because the actual arrangement effected under the interim care order, with CZ living with the paternal grandmother for the period while the parents enjoyed virtually unrestricted contact, was a variation of a plan which the parents had formed with Health Professionals prior to and following the birth in any event, namely for the paternal grandmother to reside with them for that period, and secondly, because once the parents and Cafcass obtained legal representation and were able to consider the situation with legal advice, none of them sought to challenge the living arrangement immediately and did not in fact do so until 20 January 2016.

 

 

The fundamental issue here was that the damages sought amounted to just over £10,000 and because they arose out of care proceedings, in order for the parents and child to receive a penny of those damages those representing them also sought costs orders not only for the HRA claims but for the care proceedings.

 

That is because the statutory charge bites on the damages, not only for the HRA claim costs (which is sensible) but for the care proceedings (which is hard to explain, but it is clear that it does).

section 25 LASPO 2012; this statutory provision reads:

 

 

 

 

“25 Charges on property in connection with civil legal services

(1) Where civil legal services are made available to an individual under this Part, the amounts described in subsection (2) are to constitute a first charge on—

(a) any property recovered or preserved by the individual in proceedings, or in any compromise or settlement of a dispute, in connection with which the services were provided (whether the property is recovered or preserved for the individual or another person), and

(b) any costs payable to the individual by another person in connection with such proceedings or such a dispute.

(2) Those amounts are—

(a) amounts expended by the Lord Chancellor in securing the provision of the services (except to the extent that they are recovered by other means), and

(b) other amounts payable by the individual in connection with the services under section 23 or 24″.

 

The total costs were £120,000.   (To be fair, Cobb J has included the LA’s costs within that calculation, and the LA would be paying their own costs in any event. So the costs are really £80,000)

You do not have to be a hot-shot civil lawyer to suspect that spending £80,000 to recover £10,000 is not a viable proposition.

Cobb J considered this case in a very detailed way and said some very important things.

 

  1. The cunning solution in P v A Local Authority [2016] EWHC 2779 (Fam) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2779.html , a case in which Keehan J found a way of facilitating the grant of the award of damages to the Claimant in such a way that it was unaffected by the LAA’s statutory charge. On the facts of that case, the applications under the HRA 1998 and under the wardship were quite separate and unconnected; he said this: “P’s claim is and was always based upon his Art. 8 Convention right to respect for his private and family life. The claim had nothing to do with the declaratory relief granted to P in the wardship proceedings” [71] (emphasis added).

Did not work here, and would not work in the majority of the HRA claims that we are concerned with, since they did arise out of the care proceedings or a prelude to them (s20)

 

 

  1. The fact that s25 LASPO meant that the statutory charge swallows all the damages does not mean that the Court is pushed into HAVING to make an award of costs to ensure that the claimant gets something.58.I reject the Claimants’ arguments on this first basis for the following reasons:  i) I do not accept that the very wide discretion afforded to me under section 8(1) has to be condensed to one option only (i.e. to make a substantive award of costs) simply in order to achieve a ‘just’ outcome under section 8(3);ii) If it had been the intention of Parliament that damages awarded under the HRA 1998 would be exempt from the statutory charge, it would have provided for this in the revised Statutory Charge Regulations (2013); it did not; iii) Most awards of damages would be likely to be reduced to some extent by the incidence of assessment/taxation of the litigant’s own bill. While this may not apply so harshly to publicly funded litigants, it seems to me that the Claimants could not be insulated against the eventuality that the shortfall in any assessment would in itself lead to the obliteration of a modest award of damages;iv) The award of non-pecuniary damages under section 8(3) is intended to reflect the Court’s disapproval of infringement of the claimants’ rights, in providing “just satisfaction” to the claimant; it is not intended to be, of itself, a costs award. I would regard it as unprincipled to increase the award of damages by a significant sum (which on the instant facts could be approximately seven-fold) to reflect the costs of the proceedings. Parliament has devised a legitimate mechanism for the recovery of the costs incurred from those who benefit from state-funded support to pursue their litigation, and however unfairly it may operate in an individual case, it must be respected;
  2.  
  3.  
  4.  
  5.  
  6.  
  7.  
  8. He tackles the principle of financial damages over and above the declaration of breach of human rights.  39.In deciding (i) whether to award damages, and/or (ii) the amount of an award, I must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention (Article 41, though not incorporated into English law, deals with ‘just satisfaction’). It is not necessary for me to review the significant European or domestic case-law on this point, more than to identify the following extracts from speeches and judgments on the point which have guided my views:  i) The Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf CJ, Lord Phillips MR and Auld LJ) in Anufrijeva v Southwark London Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, [2004] QB 1124, [52-53], and [57-58]: “The remedy of damages generally plays a less prominent role in actions based on breaches of the articles of the Convention, than in actions based on breaches of private law obligations where, more often than not, the only remedy claimed is damages. … Where an infringement of an individual’s human rights has occurred, the concern will usually be to bring the infringement to an end and any question of compensation will be of secondary, if any, importance” [52/53].
  9.  
  10.  
  11.  
  12. 38.An award for damages for infringement of Convention Rights is warranted where the court concludes that it is “necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made” (section 8(3) HRA 1998). There is no specific formula or prescription for what amounts to “just satisfaction”, but in considering the issue, statute requires me to consider “all the circumstances of the case” including any other relief or remedy granted (including the grant of a declaration, and I suggest a formal apology) and the consequences of any decision of the court.

 

I interject here, to say that this is not the way that damages claims under the HRA in care proceedings has been developing, and it is a noteworthy reminder.

 

 

“Our approach to awarding damages in this jurisdiction should be no less liberal than those applied at Strasbourg or one of the purposes of the HRA will be defeated and claimants will still be put to the expense of having to go to Strasbourg to obtain just satisfaction. The difficulty lies in identifying from the Strasbourg jurisprudence clear and coherent principles governing the award of damages….”

 

 

And then quoting from the Law Commission:

 

 

“Perhaps the most striking feature of the Strasbourg case-law, … is the lack of clear principles as to when damages should be awarded and how they should be measured”. [57/58]

 

  1. ii) Lord Bingham in Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 1 WLR 673 at [9] and [19],

 

 

“The routine treatment of a finding of violation as, in itself, just satisfaction for the violation found reflects the point already made that the focus of the Convention is on the protection of human rights and not the award of compensation.” [9]

 

 

“The Court [in Strasbourg] routinely describes its awards as equitable, which I take to mean that they are not precisely calculated but are judged by the Court to be fair in the individual case. Judges in England and Wales must also make a similar judgment in the case before them.” [19]

 

iii) Lord Reed in R (o.t.a. Faulkner) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 23 at [13](4)/(7):

 

 

“(4) [T]he quantum of awards under section 8 should broadly reflect the level of awards made by the European court in comparable cases brought by applicants from the UK or other countries with a similar cost of living

 

 

(7) The appropriate amount to be awarded in such circumstances will be a matter of judgment, reflecting the facts of the individual case and taking into account such guidance as is available from awards made by the European court, or by domestic courts under section 8 of the 1998 Act, in comparable cases”.

 

  1. iv) And in a passage which directly chimes with the facts of this case, Wilson LJ in Re C (Breach of Human Rights: Damages) [2007] EWCA Civ 2, [2007] 1 FLR 1957 at [64]

 

 

“… the European Court generally favours an award of damages in cases in which local authorities have infringed the right of parents under Article 8 to respect for their family life by shortcomings in the procedures by which they have taken children into care or kept them in care, whether temporarily or permanently” [64]

40.I further take account of the Practice Direction issued by the President of the European Court of Human Rights (2007; re-issued September 2016) on ‘just satisfaction’:

 

 

 

 

“The purpose of the Court’s award in respect of damage is to compensate the applicant for the actual harmful consequences of a violation. It is not intended to punish the Contracting Party responsible. The Court has therefore, until now, considered it inappropriate to accept claims for damages with labels such as “punitive”, “aggravated” or “exemplary”.” [9]

 

 

“It is in the nature of non-pecuniary damage that it does not lend itself to precise calculation. If the existence of such damage is established, and if the Court considers that a monetary award is necessary, it will make an assessment on an equitable basis, having regard to the standards which emerge from its case-law.” [14]

 

 

“Applicants who wish to be compensated for non-pecuniary damage are invited to specify a sum which in their view would be equitable. Applicants who consider themselves victims of more than one violation may claim either a single lump sum covering all alleged violations or a separate sum in respect of each alleged violation”. [15]

 

It is convenient to cite here also what is said in the Practice Direction (at [17]) about costs and expenses (to which I make reference at [58(vi)] below):

 

 

“The Court will uphold claims for costs and expenses only in so far as they are referable to the violations it has found. It will reject them in so far as they relate to complaints that have not led to the finding of a violation, or to complaints declared inadmissible”.

 

And thus that damages are not a natural consequence of an identified breach – the claimant must specify what damages they seek and why they are sought. Why are the breaches such that only an award of damages will provide ‘just satisfaction’?

 

(I will return to this, because if the damages are just going to the LAA because of the stat charge, HOW CAN the claimant really argue that the award is to provide ‘just satisfaction’? On the face of it, all that is achieved is punishing the public body by making them write a cheque to the LAA, and that’s specifically ruled out by para 9 of the Practice Direction…)

 

Note however, what Wilson LJ said in Re C, quoted above, that the ECHR does make damages awards where the breaches have caused a parent to lose their child, “whether temporarily or permanently”

 

  1. Awarding costs of the care proceedings due to egregious conductCobb J ruled that the LA had conducted part of the proceedings in a way that triggered a justification for a costs order under the Supreme Court guidance in Re S and Re T, but not the whole of the proceedings, and the costs order should be limited to that.
  2. 67.In relation to the costs of the CA 1989 proceedings, the Claimants have failed to demonstrate in my judgment that the Local Authority behaved “reprehensibly” or “unreasonably” otherwise than in the circumstances in which it launched the proceedings and conducted the hearing on 13 November. This had ramifications (i.e. the placement of CZ away from the parents’ care) until 7 December. In my judgment, applying ordinary costs principles, the Claimants would be entitled to the costs of the CA 1989 proceedings for the limited period from 13 November to 7 December 2015.
  3. The Claimants litigation conduct had a bearing on the costs award in relation to the HRA claim – not making efforts to try to settle the case and not responding constructively to offers had a bearing on this.          
  4. On ordinary costs principles, I am of the view that the Claimants should be entitled to recovery of their costs of the HRA 1998 proceedings from the grant of certificates up to and including 14 July, but no further.
  5. vi) On the information available to me, the Claimants have not complied with the direction which I made (on 5 October 2016) to make open proposals for settlement in a timely way, or at all.
  6. v) So far as I can tell, there was no response to the offer made on 15 July 2016;
  7. iv) Further ‘without prejudice’ offers were made on the days either side of the Case Management hearing on 14 July, without any meaningful response. On the 14 July itself, at court, Ms. Irving QC made an open offer. On 15 July 2016, the offer was increased to £2,500 on an open basis, together with the HRA 1998 costs; the Local Authority proposed a further ’round table’ discussion but this fell on deaf ears;
  8. iii) The mother and Children’s Guardian did not respond positively to the request to provide costs schedules at an early stage or an order to the same effect, and none of the Claimants complied with my direction for the provision of open offers of settlement;
  9. ii) The Claimants were invited from 22 February 2016 to indicate a ‘settlement amount’ in relation to any prospective HRA 1998 claim, but they did not apparently (i.e. from the correspondence – including that marked ‘without prejudice’ – which I have now seen) do so;
  10. i) They failed to respond constructively to the Local Authority’s efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement; from an early stage (i.e. February 2016: see [45](i) above), through until July and beyond, the Local Authority was making appropriate overtures to sort out this dispute, but the Claimants were ostensibly unreceptive;
  11.  
  12. 66.On the facts of this case, the Claimants have succeeded in their HRA 1998 claim, and ordinarily therefore they could look to the “unsuccessful” party (Local Authority) to pay their costs under Part 44.2(2)(a); however, I consider that the Claimants’ litigation conduct is such that they have forfeited this entitlement. In particular:
  13.                 In any evaluation of costs whether under the CPR 1998 or the FPR 2010, I am obliged to have regard to the parties’ litigation conduct, and whether costs are reasonably or not reasonably incurred. The Claimants’ approach would require me to ignore or forgive any reckless, wasteful or profligate manufacture of costs in order to ensure that the Claimants receive their award; this cannot be right. In this case, as will be apparent from my comments below, the Claimants did not conscientiously attempt to settle their claims, whereas I am satisfied that the Local Authority did make genuine efforts to do so
  14. A suggestion was made to multiply the child’s damages by 3, and award the total damages to the child, so that only the Child’s public funding certificate had the stat charge arise, and thus make only costs order to cover the child’s certificate in full.

 

Mr. Taylor further submitted that I could award an aggregate damages award of £11,250 (£3750 x 3) to the child, and order the Local Authority to pay all of the costs of the Children’s Guardian; in that way, (i) this would reduce the financial outlay for the Local Authority than the alternative route contended for by the Claimants, and (ii) at least one of the parties would actually benefit from a damages award. Ms. Irving QC indicated that if the Court approved it, the Local Authority would not contest this approach. The LAA was, sensibly, consulted about this proposal, and rejected it for the contrivance which it undoubtedly is. I could not in any circumstances sanction this approach. I have awarded damages to each of the three Claimants; the figure awarded is what I regard as “necessary” to give “just satisfaction” to each of them. The proposal outlined undermines the principles on which I have resolved the claims.

 

 

 

 

Decision

 

75.I shall make the declarations proposed and conceded, set out in [33] above.

 

76.I shall award each of the three Claimants £3,750 by way of damages, to be paid by the Local Authority, under section 8(3) HRA 1998. It is, I acknowledge, regrettable that because of the costs order I propose to make, the Claimants are unlikely to receive these sums.

 

77.I shall make an order that the Local Authority makes a contribution to the publicly funded costs of the Claimants, limited to the following periods:

  1. a) 13.11.15-7.12.15 (all Claimants: CA 1989 proceedings);

 

  1. b) From the date on which the LAA granted extensions to the Claimants’ existing certificates (issued for the CA 1989 proceedings) for them to pursue HRA 1998 claims to 14.7.16, excluding the costs incurred by those who attended on behalf of the mother and the child at the meeting arranged by the Local Authority on 17 March 2016 (save as provided for herein, all Claimants: HRA 1998 proceedings).

78.That is my judgment.

 

Quantum-wise, a sum of damages of £3,750 per party, for the child being removed under an ICO hearing where the parents had not been given notice and the Court was misinformed that (a) they had and (b) they consented to the plans, where the LA withdrew the proceedings just months later because threshold was not met, compared to some of the very high s20 damages awards makes interesting reading. Cobb J was very specifically addressed on quantum and the principles to be applied and this case (together with the Hackney case) sets down a considerable marker that there is unlikely to be sufficient diamonds in the mine to justify the digging costs save in a highly exceptional case.

To escape the stat charge and ensure that the client receives any of the compensation, either the costs will need to be very small, or the damages very large, or a better case for a costs order than this one….

 

Keep feeling Vaccination

 

And so the conversation turned, until the sun went down

 

This is a High Court case involving parents who were already in care proceedings, who did not want their child to be vaccinated.  (The decision not to vaccinate was not the reason for the care proceedings, and I think it’s unlikely that it would be considered threshold criteria.)

It helpfully gathers all of the other authorities and principles on vaccination, so although it is a case that turns on its facts (it is not authority for the Court always will or always won’t order vaccination to go ahead), it is useful if it comes up again. It also raises interesting philosophical questions about State intervention and parental autonomy.

 

Re SL (Permission to vaccinate) 2017

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/125.html

 

SL was seven months old, and one of four siblings within care proceedings. He was the subject of an Interim Care Order.

 

The local authority now applies under the inherent jurisdiction for a declaration that it is in SL’s best interests for the local authority to be given permission to arrange for him to receive the Haemophilus Influenza Type b (Hib) vaccine (hereafter, the ‘Hib’ vaccine) and the pneumococcal conjugate (PCV) vaccine (hereafter the ‘PCV’ vaccine) in circumstances where the mother objects to this course of action.

 

It is something of a law geek pleasure to see that the Dr in the case was a Dr De Keyser, and the advocates in the case would be made of stronger stuff than me if they avoided any temptation to fall into the ‘you say de keyser, I say de Geezer’ dialogue from the Supreme Court article 50 case.

 

The mother’s opposition to the vaccination was because she considered that her older children had suffered adverse reactions to their own vaccinations

 

 

  • The mother’s opposition to SL being given the Hib vaccine and the PCV vaccine is based primarily on adverse reactions to being so immunised that she states that her other children have undergone in the past. Professor Kroll was accordingly also asked to consider whether there is anything in the older children’s medical records that causes him concern regarding SL receiving the disputed immunisations. Professor Kroll, being careful to note that the abbreviated medical records provided to him may not be complete, makes clear that in none of the records he reviewed relating to SL’s siblings detail any significant adverse reaction to vaccination in general or to Hib or PCV vaccination in particular in any of the children. Professor Kroll further opines that even had there been evidence in the medical records of some reaction, this would not, in general, constitute a medical contraindication to vaccinating SL.
  • Within the foregoing context, Professor Kroll concludes that there is no medical reason why SL ought not to have the vaccinations in issue according to the UK immunisation schedule. He further concludes that withholding the Hib and PCV vaccines for SL would mean deliberately maintaining his vulnerability, which is at its maximum given his present age, to two very serious infections which are major causes of infection, including bacterial meningitis. Professor Kroll is clear that whilst not providing total protection, a full course of vaccination provides a “very substantial degree” of protection against these infections. He concludes that, in his expert medical opinion, SL needs to be immunised without delay and to receive booster immunisations at the appropriate time.

 

 

The LA argued that the Court should use their inherent jurisdiction    but they meant “Magical Sparkle Powers TM” to direct that the child should have vaccinations

 

 

  • On behalf of the local authority, Ms Markham QC and Ms Georges submit that the local authority should be given permission to ensure that SL receives the Hib vaccine and the PCV vaccine, the administration of such vaccines being in his best interests. Developing this submission, in particular Ms Markham QC and Ms Georges argue that:

 

(a) The local authority acknowledges the mother’s views regarding the immunisation of SL. The local authority further recognises that the declaration it seeks trespasses on the mother’s Art 8 right to respect for her private and family life insofar as the decision whether or not to immunise a child is ordinarily a function of the exercise of parental responsibility.

(b) On the evidence before the court however, the balance of risk is clear. Namely, the expert evidence indicates clearly that the risk attendant on giving the vaccines to SL are outweighed by the risks of not giving them to him, in particular when regard is had to the likely gravity of the consequences of the former when compared to potential gravity of the consequences of the latter.

(c) Moreover, on the evidence before the court, the decision whether to immunise SL against Hib and pneumococcal infections is not a finely balanced one. Rather, it is plain on the evidence before the court that vaccination is in his best interests.

(d) Had the local authority received further information or evidence suggesting that there was some doubt, or a finer balance with respect to the question of whether SL should receive the vaccines in issue, the local authority may have changed its position. However, no such information or evidence has materialised notwithstanding the directions of the court.

 

The mother’s legal team made these submissions

 

 

  • Ms Connolly QC and Ms Gill made the following submissions on behalf of the mother:

 

(a) Applications for a declaration that it is in the child’s best interests to receive vaccinations are rare. In respect of the decision whether or not to vaccinate a child, parents are accorded a significant degree of autonomy by the State. Ordinarily, a parent in the position of the mother would get to decide whether to have a child immunised as a function of the exercise of that parent’s parental responsibility and would not be brought to court if the parental decision were that the vaccinations should not be given.

(b) The mother relies on three alleged instances of her older children attending hospital following what the mother contends were adverse reactions to immunisation. Whilst the mother has not produced the records associated with these attendances (or, it must be observed, evidence that such records were requested but unavailable), and whilst none of the asserted instances are referred to in the records reviewed by Professor Kroll, she asserts to the court that VL suffered a swollen leg, that DL suffered an ear infection and the CL developed a rash.

(c) The mother’s objections, and the extent to which they are reasonable, must be viewed in the context of the particular matters with which these proceedings are concerned, albeit matters wholly unrelated to the issue of immunisation, and in the context of the SL not being in her care, which factors heighten the mother’s concerns regarding the administration of the vaccines to SL in the context of the alleged adverse reactions experienced by SL’s siblings.

(d) Whilst the consequences of SL catching the diseases, which the respective vaccines are designed to protect against are potentially grave, risk of SL catching the diseases against which the vaccines protect is low, as is the risk that the diseases will have a grave outcome if SL were to catch them.

(e) Within this context, the mother’s considered decision with respect to the vaccination of SL should be respected by the court and the application of the local authority dismissed having regard to the legal principles applicable to that application.

 

On behalf of the child

 

  • On behalf of SL, Mr Tughan QC and Ms Piccos submit that it is plainly in SL’s best interests for the outstanding vaccinations to be given to him. As does the local authority, on behalf of SL Mr Tughan QC and Ms Piccos recognise that a parent is, ordinarily, accorded a significant degree of autonomy by the State in deciding in the exercise of their parental responsibility whether to vaccinate a child. However, in circumstances where there is a dispute between those holding parental responsibility for SL (namely, the mother and the local authority) such that the court is required to determine that dispute by reference to SL’ best interests, Mr Tughan QC and Ms Piccos submit that the evidence before the court indicates that the balance of risk falls firmly in favour of SL receiving the vaccinations on the UK Immunisation Schedule that he has not received to date.
  • With respect to the weight to be attached to the views of the mother, Mr Tughan QC and Ms Piccos submit that the court must consider these views through the prism of the aspects of the mother’s personality identified in the expert evidence in the 2014 proceedings, specifically an obsessive compulsive personality disorder with schizoid personality traits, paranoid personality features and narcissistic personality features.

 

 

I have an unusual position here. My position is that of course children should be vaccinated, and that the scare stories about vaccination lack any proper evidential rigour.  However, my position is also that parents have the capacity to make decisions about their children and their medical treatment even if those decisions are ones that others might consider reckless or stupid or foolhardy. I don’t see that the parent should lose that capacity and have it taken away from them at an INTERIM stage. It might be different if the Court conclude the care proceedings and make final orders meaning that the child will be cared for elsewhere during the remainder of their childhood. But I’d have said that here, autonomy trumps my view that vaccination benefits children, and society.  I would possibly draw a distinction where the child is being denied medical treatment by a parent’s decision which is causing the child pain, harm, suffering or puts their life in danger. But that wasn’t the case here – vaccination would protect the child from a possible future risk, but this child was in no imminent danger.  That’s just my own personal view, which is worth nothing at all, but just to let you know where I’m coming from.

 

The law

 

 

  • As Ms Connolly QC and Ms Gill point out, applications of this nature are rare and there are only a limited number of reported decisions concerning the issue of immunisation.
  • In Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] 2 FLR 1054, a case which considered a dispute between two parents with parental responsibility within the context of the framework provided by s 8 of the Children Act 1989, Sumner J held that the children concerned should receive immunisations appropriate to their age against the wishes of the mother but in line with the recommendation of the expert medical evidence before the court (which in that case included a report from Dr Kroll instructed by CAFCASS Legal). Sumner J’s decision was upheld on appeal. In in Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) [2003] 2 FLR 1095, Thorpe LJ rejected the repeated categorisation of the course of immunisation as non-essential invasive treatment and considered it to be more correctly categorised as preventative healthcare. Within this context, he observed that:

 

“[16] The apparent freedom of each [parent] to act alone is not, however, unfettered. As Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said in the case of Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision) [2000] 1 FLR 571 at 577D:

‘There is, in my view, a small group of important decisions made on behalf of a child which, in the absence of agreement of those with parental responsibility, ought not to be carried out or arranged by one parent carer although she has parental responsibility under s 2(7) of the Children Act 1989. Such a decision ought not to be made without the specific approval of the court. Sterilisation is one example. The change of a child’s surname is another.’

[17] In that case the court held that the circumcision of the child should only be carried out where the parents agree or where a court, in settling the dispute between them, decides that the operation is in the best interests of the child. In my opinion this appeal demonstrates that hotly contested issues of immunisation are to be added to that ‘small group of important decisions’.

[18] Of course where the obligation falls on the court to decide such an issue the court must apply the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration (s 1(1) of the Children Act 1989) and also have regard to the s 1(3) checklist.”

 

  • At first instance in Re C (Welfare of Child: Immunisation) Sumner J made clear that he had had regard to the wide scope for parental opposition to medical intervention in respect of a child, which he summarised as ranging from obvious cases where the objection would be widely regarded as having no validity in child welfare terms to cases where there is scope for genuine debate on the issue. Within this context, Sumner J acknowledged a parent’s right to choose whether they accepted medical advice to have their children immunised and that immunisation was a subject of genuine public debate. Sumner J further made clear that his decision should not be seen as a general approval of immunisation for children and that each case is fact specific.
  • In Re A, B, C and D (Welfare of Children: Immunisation) [2011] EWHC 4033 (Fam), Theis J considered the issue of vaccinations in the context of children who were the subject of final care orders, where the dispute was between the local authority, who shared parental responsibility under those orders, and the parents with parental responsibility as to whether the children should be vaccinated. Within this context, Theis J proceeded to determine the question under the auspice of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. She concluded the children in that case should be vaccinated. Theis J articulated the following applicable legal principles:

 

“[9] There is no dispute between the parties as to the law. Once the inherent jurisdiction is invoked the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

[10] The Court of Appeal in Re J (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1991] 1 FLR 366 considered the future medical management of a severely brain-damaged premature baby with a considerably shortened life expectancy. Lord Donaldson MR said at 370 ‘…The court, when exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction, takes over the rights and duties of the parents, although this is not to say that the parents will be excluded from the decision-making process. Nevertheless, in the end, the responsibility for the decision whether to give or to withhold consent is that of the court alone.’

[11] In this case the dispute is the exercise of parental responsibility as between the parents and the Local Authority. I have been referred to a number of cases that look at how the parent’s views should be considered by the court. In Re Z (A Minor)(Freedom of Publication) [1996] 1 FLR 191 Sir Thomas Bingham MR said at 217 B-C:

‘I would for my part accept without reservation that the decision of a devoted and responsible parent should be treated with respect. It should certainly not be disregarded or lightly set aside. But the role of the court is to exercise an independent and objective judgment. If that judgment is in accord with that of the devoted and responsible parent, well and good. If it is not, then it is the duty of the court, after giving due weight to the view of the devoted and responsible parent, to give effect to its own judgment. That is what it is there for. Its judgment may of course be wrong. So may that of the parent. But once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked its clear duty is to reach and express the best judgment it can’.

In Re T (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1997] 1 FLR 502 Butler Sloss P said at 509 that

‘…it is clear that when an application under the inherent jurisdiction is made to the court the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The consent or refusal of consent of the parents is an important consideration to weigh in the balancing exercise to be carried out by the judge. In that context the extent to which the court will have regard to the view of the parent will depend upon the court’s assessment of that view. But as Sir Thomas Bingham MR said in Re Z, the court decides and in doing so may overrule the decision of a reasonable parent’.

[12] The court also has to carefully consider Article 8 of the European Convention and, in particular, consider whether what is proposed is a justified and proportionate interference with family life.”

 

  • Within the context of the last point elucidated by Theis J concerning rights under Art 8 of the ECHR, Art 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that States parties to that Convention recognise the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and, within that context, imposes on States parties an obligation to pursue full implementation of that right, including the taking of appropriate measures to combat disease.
  • The most recent decision on immunisation appears to be a further decision of Theis J in the case of F v F (MMR Vaccine) [2014] 1 FLR 1328. In that case, Theis J made the following important observation in relation to cases of this nature at [21]:

 

“This is an issue concerning the exercise of parental responsibility that in most circumstances is negotiated between the parents and their decision put into effect. Parents often have to make decisions for children to meet their welfare needs, as Ms Vivian observed that is ‘what parenting is about’. As with many aspects of the exercise of parental responsibility, in particular as children get older, it will often require discussion and explanation by the parents of their decision to their children which may be against their wishes and feelings. This has not been possible in this case as the parents disagree and the court has been asked to step in to make the decision. The court can only make decisions on the evidence that it has in each particular case and by considering the welfare needs of each child. By doing so in this case the court does not in any way dictate how this issue should be decided in other situations; each case is fact specific. This case is only concerned with the welfare needs of these children.”

 

  • Thus, where there is a dispute between those holding parental responsibility (whether as between parents or between parents and a local authority holding a care order) as to whether such a vaccination or vaccinations should take place the court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute. In determining the question before the court, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration of the court. Within this context, the court must accord appropriate weight to the views of the parent or parents having assessed those views and must exercise an independent and objective judgment on the basis of the totality of the evidence before it, including, but not limited to, the expert evidence.
  • In this case the court is concerned with the issue of vaccinations in the context of children who are the subject of care orders and thus the dispute is between the local authority sharing parental responsibility for the child and the parent with parental responsibility. In the circumstances where SL is in the care of the local authority, by virtue of s 9(1) of the Children Act 1989 the local authority cannot apply for a specific issue order with respect to the issue of vaccination. Further, given the gravity of the issue in dispute, it is not appropriate for the local authority simply to give its consent to immunisation pursuant to the provisions of s 33(3) of the Children Act 1989 on the basis of its shared parental responsibility for SL under the interim care order (see A Local Authority v SB, AB & MB) [2010] 2 FLR 1203 and Re Jake (Withholding Medical Treatment) [2015] EWHC 2442 (Fam)).
  • In the circumstances, as in Re A, B, C and D (Welfare of Children: Immunisation) [2011] EWHC 4033 (Fam), and whilst the C2 application made by the local authority on 21 October 2016 is for an order in existing Children Act proceedings, the application the local authority pursues before this court must in fact be an application for relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The local authority requires leave to make such an application, which application for leave is to be considered against the criteria set out in s 100(4) of the Children Act 1989. Being satisfied that the relief sought by the local authority does not contravene s 100(2) of the Children Act 1989 and that the criteria for granting leave to the local authority to make an application under the inherent jurisdiction set out in s 100(4) of the Act are met, I granted permission for the local authority to make an application for relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

 

 

 

Decision

 

 

  • I acknowledge Ms Connolly QC and Ms Gill’s submission that parents are ordinarily accorded a significant degree of autonomy when deciding whether to have their child immunised as a function of the exercise of their parental responsibility. Whilst, historically, vaccination was compelled by law under the Vaccination Act 1853 and subsequent legislation, vaccination is not now compulsory in this jurisdiction, the Vaccination Act 1898 having introduced an exception allowing parents who did not believe vaccination was efficacious or safe to obtain a certificate of exemption (introducing the concept of the “conscientious objector” into English law) and the National Health Service Act 1946 having thereafter repealed the compulsory vaccination laws in their entirety. However, I cannot accept Ms Connolly QC and Ms Gill’s submission that, ordinarily, a parent in the position of the mother (my emphasis) would get to decide whether to have a child immunised as a function of the exercise of her parental responsibility.
  • The fact that this court is required to decide whether SL should be immunised is, in this case, a function of a dispute between those who hold of parental responsibility for SL, namely the mother and the local authority (the identity of SL’s father not being known). Where there is such a dispute the court is under an obligation to determine that dispute in accordance with the legal principles articulated above. That determination is not an example of overreaching by the State into an area of parental choice but, rather, is an example of the court discharging its obligation to ensure the welfare of the child is safeguarded in circumstances where those charged with meeting the child’s welfare needs cannot agree on how that end is best achieved. Again, as Theis J noted in Re A, B, C and D (Welfare of Children: Immunisation), in Re Z (A Minor)(Freedom of Publication) [1996] 1 FLR 191 Sir Thomas Bingham MR said at 217 B-C:

 

“I would for my part accept without reservation that the decision of a devoted and responsible parent should be treated with respect. It should certainly not be disregarded or lightly set aside. But the role of the court is to exercise an independent and objective judgment. If that judgment is in accord with that of the devoted and responsible parent, well and good. If it is not, then it is the duty of the court, after giving due weight to the view of the devoted and responsible parent, to give effect to its own judgment. That is what it is there for. Its judgment may of course be wrong. So may that of the parent. But once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked its clear duty is to reach and express the best judgment it can”.

 

  • Thus, the fact that parents are ordinarily accorded a significant degree of autonomy when deciding whether to have their child immunised as a function of the exercise of their parental responsibility where there is no dispute between them, and the fact that, accordingly, this issue rarely comes before the court, does not, in circumstances where there is in this case a frank disagreement between her and the local authority as to what is in SL’s best interests, mean that this mother is being somehow singled out as compared to other parents with respect to the issue of vaccination.
  • The fact that parents are ordinarily accorded a significant degree of autonomy when deciding whether to have their child immunised as a function of the exercise of their parental responsibility where there is no dispute does, however, mean that when the issue has to come before the court, the court must accord proper weight to the views of the parent. I have of course given very careful consideration to the mother’s objections to vaccination. It is not difficult to see how the, albeit unrelated, events with which this court is concerned have focused her mind on the potential risks of vaccination to SL’s wellbeing. The mother has decided that those risks outweigh the risks of not vaccinating SL. A parent is fully entitled to make a decision based on their assessment of the likelihood of infection and how severe that infection might be in terms of outcome.
  • However, I must and do have regard to the fact that the mother’s evaluation does not accord with the expert medical evidence before the court. Indeed, that medical evaluation reaches a diametrically opposed view. Whilst welfare is a very wide concept, and whilst the principle of best interests means more than just medical best interests, the unchallenged conclusions of the expert instructed to assist the court on the question of immunisation are, necessarily, a powerful pointer towards what is in SL’s best interests on the question of immunisation. I must also have regard to the fact that, whilst the mother submits that her considered view is grounded in her direct experience of adverse reactions in her other children, she has not in any way evidenced the factual basis she contends grounds her reasoned evaluation of the risks on this basis, despite being given every opportunity to do so. These matters significantly reduce the weight I am able to attach to the mother’s views in respect of the vaccination of SL as against the evidence of the expert.
  • Lastly in respect of the mother’s views, whilst I note the submissions of Mr Tughan QC and Ms Piccos regarding the impact of the expert opinion in the 2014 proceedings regarding the mother’s personality traits, in circumstances where I have not heard evidence on how those matters may impact on the mother’s views on the subject matter presently before the court, I make clear that I have not taken account of those matters when evaluating the mother’s views and the weight to attach to them.
  • Within the foregoing context, having regard to all of the evidence before the court and evaluating the position by reference to the principle that SL’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration, I am satisfied that it is in SL’s best interests to receive the outstanding Hib and PCV vaccines.
  • Finally, I have, as I must, paid careful regard to the Art 8 right of the mother to respect for her family life. A decision by the court (as a public authority pursuant to s 6(3)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998) to authorise the immunisation of SL in the face of the mother’s objection, and in circumstances where parents are ordinarily accorded a significant degree of autonomy by the State when deciding whether to have their child immunised as a function of the exercise of their parental responsibility where there is no dispute, constitutes an interference in the mother’s Art 8 right to respect for family life. For that interference to be lawful it must be justified by reference to the terms of Art 8(2). Having regard to the evidence set out above, I am satisfied that the interference in the mother’s right to respect for family life under Art 8 constituted by a decision of this court to authorise the immunisation of SL against her wishes is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests protecting SL’s health and, accordingly, is a justified and proportionate interference. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that a decision to authorise the immunisation of SL accords with his right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health under Art 24 of the UNCRC.

 

CONCLUSION

 

  • For the reasons I have given, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in this case to make a declaration under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court that it is in SL’s best interests for the local authority to be given permission to arrange for him to receive the Hib vaccine and the PCV vaccine and I do so.
  • Finally, I make clear that the decision of the court is not a judgment on whether immunisation is a good thing or bad thing generally. Like Sumner J and Theis J before me, I emphasise that the court is not saying anything about the merits of vaccination more widely and does not in any way seek to dictate how this issue should be approached in other situations. This judgment is concerned solely with an evaluation of one child’s best interests based on the very particular circumstances of this case and on the evidence that is available to the court.
  • That is my judgment.

 

 

I think this case was rightly decided on the law as it stands. I’m not sure I’m happy with the law as it stands. Here we have a position where a parent who is not in care proceedings gets to say yay or nay to vaccinations and their decision will be sacrosanct, but a parent who is in care proceedings (perhaps with allegations of threshold which are not finally proven) does not have that same right.  I think the right thing for the child was to be vaccinated, but I think as ever with magical sparkle powers, the Court does things with the very best of intentions which end up being the foundation for the next step away from autonomy, and the next step becomes foundation for the one after.

 

Das reBoot – Court of Appeal find reverse gear (once again)

 

A major theme in family case law over the last 2-3 years has been misuse of section 20 – voluntary accommodation, with all sorts of guidance being provided, culminating in the President of the Family Division giving a decision in Re N 2015 which just invented huge new chunks of legal obligations on Local Authorities and threatening damages if they didn’t obey.

 

That in turn, quite coincidentally, led to the biggest increases in number of care proceedings issued that we have seen since the Baby P crisis hit. It is a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, over that same period of time, we haven’t actually seen the number of children in foster care go up at all, but we have seen the number of care proceedings go up by 35%, but the two things are utterly unrelated.

 

As I’ve said before, I do think that there was a genuine problem with section 20 misuse and it needed to be addressed – I just think we swapped one problem for three others – an increased demand which the system utterly couldn’t manage, an increased layer of complexity and time in dealing with claims being added into care proceedings which the system utterly couldn’t manage, and an insoluble problem about how to deal with the cost issues caused by the statutory charge which, you’ve guessed it…

(And also, as I’ve said before, I’d be entirely up for Parliament to review s20 and put in some stronger safeguards for parents – I think a very short limit on the initial s20 and it to be reviewed at a meeting to which parents have free legal advice would be a start)

Anyway, the Court of Appeal today have given judgment on an appeal from one of the early s20 damages cases – this was one where the police removed children after the father hit one of them with a belt, the police arrested the parents and gave them bail conditions not to live with the children, and the parents objected to s20.  The parents later sued the LA for breach of their human rights in continuing the s20 without their express consent.

 

I wrote about the original case at the time, and if WordPress ever stops behaving like a four year old hopped up on Tartrazine, I’ll put a link in.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/26.html

 

London Borough of Hackney v Williams & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 26 (26 January 2017)

 

(you can skip right to the end if you just want the reboot paragraph, I’ve put it in super large font)

 

So this is an appeal from an award for £10,000 damages against Hackney, where the parents had been arrested and had bail conditions not to be with the children. The LA asked for s20, the parents refused to sign and the LA relied upon the statute that the parents were prevented (for whatever reason) from providing accommodation and thus s20 (1) (c)  was met, and that the parents objection had to be looked at in the context of s20(7) which states

 

(7) A local authority may not provide accommodation under this section for any child if any person who—

 

(a) has parental responsibility for him; and

 

(b) is willing and able to—

 

(i) provide accommodation for him; or

 

(ii) arrange for accommodation to be provided for him, objects.

 

 

The parents were objecting, but weren’t providing any alternative accommodation, and weren’t in fact able to provide their own accommodation (because they would have then been in breach of bail conditions, and arrested. So the LA view was that it wasn’t a legal objection because they weren’t able to meet (b) (i) or (ii)

 

 

This all happened, by the way, in 2007.

 

The High Court looked at it in  September 2015 , and decided that the bail conditions weren’t sufficient to defeat the objection under s20(7) and awarded the parents £10,000 compensation each, plus costs. The High Court were clear that the allegations that led to the arrest were largely true (the father had hit the child with a belt) but nonetheless the parents human rights had been breached by the LA s20ing the children without consent, rather than seeking consent or a court order.

 

This, 18 months later, reaches the Court of Appeal.

 

 

The Court of Appeal look at Sir Mark Hedley’s decision in Coventry City Council v C [2013] EWHC 2190 (Fam) ,  and the Court of Appeal decisions giving judicial guidance on s20 cases  Re B (Looked after child) [2013] EWCA Civ 964 (sub nom Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Others); Re W (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1065; and Re N (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2015] EWCA 1112.

 

The Court of Appeal say that those cases didn’t have to specifically determine a s20 issue, so where they have made comments, they are obiter and not binding. Specifically, what the President says in Re N is not binding on the Court of Appeal in a case where argument has been specifically heard on the s20 and where s20 is a ratio issue.

 

 

59.In relation to item (d), after setting out the terms of s. 20(8), Sir James stated (at [169]):

 

‘This means what it says. A local authority which fails to permit a parent to remove a child in circumstances within section 20(8) acts unlawfully, exposes itself to proceedings at the suit of the parent and may even be guilty of a criminal offence. A parent in that position could bring a claim against the local authority for judicial review or, indeed, seek an immediate writ of habeas corpus against the local authority. I should add that I am exceedingly sceptical as to whether a parent can lawfully contract out of section 20(8) in advance, as by agreeing with the local authority to give a specified period of notice before exercising their section 20(8) right.’

60.In conclusion, Sir James set out further requirements of good practice, in addition to those identified by Hedley J before stating [171]:

 

‘The misuse and abuse of section 20 in this context is not just a matter of bad practice. It is wrong; it is a denial of the fundamental rights of both the parent and the child; it will no longer be tolerated; and it must stop. Judges will and must be alert to the problem and pro-active in putting an end to it. From now on, local authorities which use section 20 as a prelude to care proceedings for lengthy periods or which fail to follow the good practice I have identified, can expect to be subjected to probing questioning by the court. If the answers are not satisfactory, the local authority can expect stringent criticism and possible exposure to successful claims for damages.’

 

72.Finally, in Re N, the judgment of Sir James Munby P does repeat his conclusion that parental consent is required by the statute; this can most conveniently be seen from two sentences (from [163]):

 A Local Authority cannot use its powers under section 20 if a parent “objects”: see section 20(7). So where, as here, the child’s parent is known and in contact with the local authority, the local authority requires the consent of the parent.”

73.In considering this passage in the President’s extensive judgment in Re N, it is necessary to be clear that any issues relating to s. 20 were very much at the periphery of that case, the focus of which was the jurisdiction of the English Family Court to make orders leading to adoption with respect to foreign nationals. It seems plain that the section of the judgment as to the working out of arrangements for s. 20 accommodation arose from concern, evidenced by a raft of recent first instance decisions, as to social work practice in general. No issue in the case of Re N turned on the interpretation of s. 20, or, indeed, on any matter with respect to s. 20. It is apparent that Sir James was using the opportunity provided by the fact that the children in Re N had been accommodated for eight months before the local authority issued care proceedings as a hook upon which to hang some, no doubt timely, firmly worded and important good practice guidance. Despite the respect that this court undoubtedly has for the opinion of a judge of such authority on these matters, the short judicial statement (in [163]) following a hearing at which the interpretation of s. 20 was not in issue cannot be binding upon this court where the focus is directly upon s. 20 and where there has been full argument.

 

 

 

Therefore, s20(7) does apply where the parent is not able to provide accommodation themselves, or is unable to provide alternative accommodation. In those circumstances, a parent’s objection does not defeat s20 – they need to be able to provide accommodation themselves or from third parties in order to satisfactorily object.

 That does NOT mean, and should not be interpreted to mean that in a scenario where the parent says “I object to s20, the child can come home with me’ that the LA can hide behind s20(7) and say that the home offered was unsuitable or dangerous, or they didn’t think it was a good idea. S20(7) goes only as far as the parent not being ABLE to have the child live with them (think bail conditions, homelessness, incarceration or detention in mental health hospital, that sort of thing) and where they aren’t able to provide any other accommodation.  It doesn’t cover “the child could live with my brother Mike” and the Social worker going “hell no”

 

 

74.I recognise that, in the context of the cases that he was then considering, it may well have been appropriate for Sir James to equate the obligation on a local authority not to use its powers under section 20 if a parent ‘objects’ as meaning, effectively, that when the parent is known and in contact with the authority, consent is required but, in my judgment, it would be wrong to elevate the requirement of consent into a rule of law that operates in all circumstances. In this case, the parents had the benefit of solicitors experienced in both family and criminal law. Their ability to apply to remove the prohibition on contact with the children was well known and emphasised by the solicitors in correspondence. The local authority was not responsible for the bail condition and had no obligation to take proactive steps to have it removed. If the solicitors had wanted the local authority to express a view, an appropriate official could have been requested to do so by the court or been the subject of a witness summons to attend.

 

 

75.On any showing, it was not for the local authority to aid and abet the flouting of the bail condition and it is not sufficient to argue that the local authority should have sought to persuade the police to modify the condition. The only inference to be drawn from the fact that the condition remained in place was that the parents (no doubt on advice) were prepared to negotiate with the police rather than risk a conflict in court. In those circumstances, for the period that the bail condition remained in place, they were not in a position to provide accommodation for them within s. 20(7)(b)(ii) of the 1989 Act and were thus not in a position legally to object whether or not they formally consented.

 

 

76.Thus, the continued existence of the bail condition had the twin consequence that Mr and Mrs Williams, firstly, were ‘prevented … for whatever reason’ from providing suitable accommodation and care for their children (s 20(1) of the 1989 Act) and, secondly, were not ‘able’ to provide accommodation for them in order to trigger their statutory right to object (s 20(7) ibid

 

 

This is the really important bit, with wider implications than the bail conditions/parent in prison objecting to s20 though.

 

 

 

77.Before passing from the issue of s. 20 of the 1989 Act and consideration of the guidance given by Sir James Munby P, Hedley J and others in the Family Division cases to which I have referred, I wish to stress that nothing that is said in this judgment is intended to, or should be read as, altering the content and effect of that guidance in family cases. The focus of the court in the present appeal is on the bottom-line legal requirements that are established by s 20 and within which a local authority must act. The guidance given in the family court, which has built upon that bottom-line in the period since the Williams’ children were removed, identifies clear, cooperative and sensible ways in which a voluntary arrangement can be made between a parent and a local authority when a child may need to be accommodated; it is, in short, good practice guidance and a description of the process that the family court expects to be followed. For reasons of good administration, the practice guidance should continue to be followed, notwithstanding the limits of the underlying legal requirements in s 20 that I have identified but a failure to follow it does not, of itself, give rise to an actionable wrong, or found a claim for judicial review.

 

I would expect to see that paragraph quoted by Local Authorities in response to any suggestion of HRA claims for s20 damages in the future.  There may be circumstances where this sort of breach does give rise to action, and we’ll have to wait to see that litigated, but it is going to need something more than just failure to comply with the guidance.   The Court of Appeal were also scathing about the proportionality of litigating this particular HRA claim – the damages were out of proportion to the costs and the Court also made it very clear that they considered the quantum of damages to be significantly more than they would have contemplated.

 

This brings me to another trend in family law – we had the raised test for interim care orders, which caused all sorts of mayhem and was eventually rolled back by the Court of Appeal saying ‘oh, nobody meant what you all thought’, then the raised test for adoption, which caused all sorts of mayhem and was eventually rolled back by the Court of Appeal saying ‘oh, nobody meant what you all thought’ and now the raised tests for s20, which caused all sorts of mayhem and has now been rolled back by the Court of Appeal saying ‘oh, they DID mean it, but they weren’t actually able to apply the teeth to it that they thought they were applying’

 

Perhaps when far-reaching judicial speeches that go further than the issue being litigated next arises, the Courts could hear full argument about the implications of what they are contemplating? Or, heaven forbid, just only tell us what the law means where it is the issue in the case and the law is unclear, rather than reworking the plain words of the Statute into what you happen to wish they said instead?

 

 

Rock bands, impenetrable vocabulary and Peers of the realm making off with wards of Court

There’s a High Court case that I’m going to briefly write about, called Egeneonu v Egeneonu 2017 .  First though it needs an intro.

About eleven years ago, when I was younger and cooler, I had friends who were in a rock band. They were pretty good – it was sort of Swamp-rock before Kings of Leon got big, and they did some decent gigs. We went to a gig, and they were on third. So we got there early, because it was a venue we hadn’t been to before, to check it out and hear the other bands.  So, we all sort of thought we were fairly rock and roll – my friends were in a band, I was a friend of the band (I can’t play an instrument – I got demoted from triangle to ‘scrapey maraca thing’ in the school orchestra).   This venue made us think otherwise. The first clue was the amount of leather the people in the club were wearing , the second was that the only two drinks the bar was selling were Jack Daniels (straight up) and Heineken (in bottles, which were served with the caps still on – everyone else in the club was opening them with their teeth or they had knives). The first band came on, and immediately the lead singer stage-dived. Not that unusual a thing to see at a gig, but it is unusual to see someone do it when the front rows aren’t full of people to catch you, and the floor is concrete.  Once the lead singer got back up, they started their first song, which was called, without irony “I got f**d by Jesus”

 

This was a gig where Jim and William Reid might have thought , “Oh, this is a bit hardcore”

At that point, all of us looked at each other, and you could see that we were all thinking – “I thought I was pretty rock, but I’m out of my depth here”

This case of the President’s – I thought I was pretty law geek, but it was too much for me. I had to keep limping away and try to breathe non-geek air for a bit to recover – (watching You-Tube videos of lumberjacks, adverts for power-drills and such) – I didn’t think it was safe to go from this much geek to normal in one go, in case I got the geek-bends.

So I’m not going to talk about the case much – let’s just say that if you want to be able to distinguish what is a civil contempt of court and what is a criminal contempt of court, and particularly if you want to know THAT, and how that applies where you’re dealing with wardship, this case is (eventually) the answer.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/43.html

 

There were two bits that grabbed me though – and honestly, this might be the least geeky bits in the whole thing, the rest of it is way worse.

 

Firstly, this was a sentence that appeared without further explanation or clarification. To be fair, it’s an extract from a very old judgment, but it is a sentence in which I didn’t understand FOUR of the words. And not just didn’t understand them, had not an inkling or approximation or even a guess at them.

 

Here it is:-

The Court of King’s Bench held that the peerage and its privileges afforded no protection in such a case; and to make the authority more applicable, the Court illustrated the decision by referring to the writ of homine replegiando against which, if a peer was refractory, it was held to be clear that he must be committed; that is, if he eloigned the body of the villein or person sought to be replieved.

 

 

I particularly like that whatever was going on immediately prior to that, the Court felt that it could be ILLUSTRATED by referring to the writ of homine replegiando against which, if a peer was refractory, it was held to be clear that he must be committed; that is, if he eloigned the body of the villein or person sought to be replieved.   I.e this is an attempt at an explanation to make something simpler…

 

Let’s try and unpick it

 

Homine repligiando is a way of getting out of custody (like habeas corpus) but by upon giving bail. So a bit like bail.

If a peer was refractory – he would be stubborn or unmanageable, or resistant to some process.  (I like that, I might end up using it)

If he eloigned  –  to remove or carry away at a distance, or to move yourself a considerable distance away

Replieved –  to have recovered goods or property from their rightful owner.

 

So using an example of bail, if a peer was unmanageable, he must be committed, if he removed someone who ought to have been returned to his rightful place ?  I think.

 

You may need to do something ungeeky now to decompress – read some pages of Andy McNab’s Bravo Two Zero or something.

 

The next bit I liked was this case

 

  • For specific cases where these principles have actually been applied, they refer to two cases in particular which I need to consider in some detail: Wellesley v The Duke of Beaufort, Long Wellesley’s Case (1831) 2 Russ & M 639, (1831) 39 ER 538, and Re Crump [1963] Crim LR 666, 777, fuller report (1963) 107 SJ 682.
  • Long Wellesley was the father of a ward who, by order of the court, had been placed in the custody of third parties in Surrey; the order restrained Wellesley, although he was not a party to the suit, from removing her from their care or custody. Wellesley subsequently removed her from their house, took her to London and then arranged for her to be removed from the jurisdiction. Brought up before Lord Brougham LC, he professed not to know where she was and said that he would never bring her again within the jurisdiction of the court. He was committed to the Fleet for contempt, the order reciting that:

 

“His Lordship does declare the conduct of [Wellesley] in removing the said infant … and in concealing the present residence of the said infant to be a contempt of this Court; and his Lordship doth further declare the conduct of [Wellesley] in forcibly and without consent removing the infant ward of this Court, the king’s subject, beyond the realm, and his refusal now in person coram judice to inform the Lord Chancellor where the said infant is to be found, to be a gross and aggravated contempt of this Court.”

Wellesley sought his release, pleading privilege of Parliament as a Member of Parliament. Lord Brougham held, 665, that privilege protected against civil but not against criminal process. The question, therefore, was whether the contempt committed by Wellesley was criminal or merely civil. The Lord Chancellor held that the contempt was criminal, so Wellesley was returned to the Fleet.

 

  • In the course of his judgment, the Lord Chancellor, 669, posed a rhetorical question:

 

“Who are the persons most likely to be guilty of those very offences which this Court is most frequently called upon to visit with punishment in order to protect its wards? If other Courts have a certain proportion of their suitors in Parliament, this Court, from the importance of the matters brought before it, has a much larger proportion there; and if there be any cases in which members of Parliament – young commoners, and young lords – are more likely than others to become obnoxious to our jurisdiction, it is precisely in cases relating to the safety of heiresses and other wards.”

In which (I think) the Lord Chancellor gives a judgment in which he suggests that the most likely people to run off with young vulnerable female wards of Court are obviously MPs and members of the House of Lords, because that’s just the sortof thing that they do.   Perhaps he means that they were ‘rescuing’ said wards. (Also “to become obnoxious to our jurisdiction” is just lovely)

So there you go, you have learned a few new words, you have found that the President’s lung capacity for law-geekery greatly exceeds mine (by a factor of around fifty, I’d say) and that if you’d been doing wardship law in the 19th century, your biggest concern would have been wayward MPs and Peers scooping up the ward and making off with them.

I shall now eloign myself from your presence and I apologise for my refractory and indeed obnoxious behaviour in writing this piece.

 

Cloak and dagger threshold

 

The word Kafka-esque crops up a lot when you talk about the family Courts, but here’s one where it is actually apt. Whatever the evidence was against the parents, not only could they not see it, but the social worker wasn’t able to see it either. And nor was the Judge.

 

Re C a child 2016

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3171.html

S015,  Counter Terrorism Command notified the Local Authority that a man who was a father of children was considered to be a significant risk of terrorism activities, radicalisation and possible flight to Syria (possibly with his children).  The Local Authority issued care proceedings.  To make this perfectly plain, if it had not been for the notification from S015, the Local Authority would not have issued care proceedings. They had no evidence, concerns or suspicions of their own. They were reacting to that notification from an organisation who they understood to have credible evidence for that belief.

 

 

"You can't TAKE Command. Command takes YOU"   Okay, so this is B6-13 not SO-15, but you get the idea

“You can’t TAKE Command. Command takes YOU” Okay, so this is B6-13 not SO-15, but you get the idea

This is what S015 told them

 

 

  • Two pieces of material led to the initiation of the application for a care order. The first stemmed from the assessment of HM Passport Office that the father is “an Islamist extremist who has previously travelled to Syria and engaged in terrorism-related activities” and that he is “likely to travel overseas to Syria in the near future … to engage in further terrorism-related activity, including fighting alongside an Islamist terrorist group.”
  • A very similar form of words was provided to the local authority on behalf of SO15 – “information suggests that (the father) holds an Islamist extremist mind-set. Information suggests that (the father) travelled to Syria in 2013 and 2015 where, it is assessed, he was fighting with an Islamist extremist group.

 

That’s sufficient to meet threshold – it is a good concluding paragraph to a threshold document on radicalisation.  The issue of course is that it works as a concluding paragraph, after the preceding paragraphs set out WHY those things are true and WHAT the evidence is to prove it.

 

However, SO15 didn’t provide that. And they didn’t provide it after the Court made an order for disclosure.   They applied to discharge the disclosure orders. At first they said that the order hadn’t been particular enough or that it was necessary to disclose anything at all.  That was a bold claim, given that the Judge who made the order was the one hearing that argument.

 

The arguments advanced on behalf of the SSHD

1. Failure to adhere to the Guidance – inappropriately wide request; insufficient notification as to issues; order made without notice

 

  • Ms Wheeler seeks to argue that the local authority’s approach to disclosure does not accord with the President’s Guidance, particularly paragraphs 10 – 12. She suggests there has been insufficient regard to the highly sensitive nature of the material sought and a failure to respect the differing roles of the public bodies identified within the Guidance. Ms Wheeler submits that the local authority should have informed the body from whom information is sought about the proceedings, including the matters in issue and what material it is minded to seek. In the first instance there should be discussion and if a hearing is required it should be on notice. Here, says Ms Wheeler, there would appear to have been no sound reason why the hearing was not on notice.
  • In relation to the last point, it would have been better, obviously, if the SSHD had been represented at the hearing on 4 October. But, as the terms of the order reflected, there was a need to make progress in the proceedings; and over the following 4 weeks there was no application to discharge or vary the order. At the hearing on 2 November, the indications were that consideration was being given to an application for a closed material procedure.
  • Ms Wheeler emphasises the need for a “coordinated strategy, predicated on open and respectful cooperation between all the safeguarding agencies involved” – see paragraph 10 of the Guidance.
  • I pause to reiterate that had it not been for information properly conveyed to the local authority by SO15, the strong likelihood is that local authority would have had no basis for instituting proceedings of any kind. For the SSHD to now contend that the local authority should have identified in discussions what the proceedings were about, the matters in issue and the information it was minded to seek, defies logic. It is a circular argument of the most bewildering kind.
  • In any event, read as a whole the order of 4 October is transparently clear and amply substantiates the requirement for disclosure. Recital 3 identifies that the court is faced with “an application for a care or supervision order;” and the reason the disclosure order has been sought is to “assist the court in determining (that) application.” Critically, recital 4 states that “(t)he court needs information about any extremist or radicalised conduct by adults in the family.” To suggest that the issues in the proceedings were imperfectly or inadequately defined is simply wrong.
  • The local authority was in no position to specify precisely what information is sought (beyond the provisions of paragraph 1 of the order) for the obvious reason that it does not know what is held. Whilst I quite accept that requests for disclosure should be approached with, as Ms Wheeler suggests, “particular care and circumspection” it is difficult to identify what more this local authority could have done in terms of specificity or definition. Whether in this instance it would have been of real benefit to the SSHD to have case summaries and draft threshold documents is extremely dubious. Once more I reiterate that had it not been for the “tip off” from SO15, there would have been no reason for this local authority to initiate proceedings. The notion that the SSHD has insufficient information to respond, other than by seeking discharge of the disclosure order, is to my mind fallacious.

 

2. Failure to comply with FPR r.21.2(3) or have regard to the Guidance – necessity

 

  • The second complaint made on behalf of the SSHD about the disclosure order of 4 October 2016 is closely related to the first. Ms Wheeler relies upon the terms of r.21.2(3) of the Family Procedure Rules 1991 – “disclosure against a third party is only permitted where it is necessary in order to dispose of the proceedings fairly” and paragraph 7(e) of the President’s Guidance – “the need (for judges) 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 would 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’.”
  • Ms Wheeler contends that the SSHD and the Passport Office “are almost entirely in the dark about the nature of the local authority’s case and the allegations of significant harm.” She maintains that disclosure was sought on an erroneous basis, namely that it would “assist” the court.
  • I cannot accept that the wrong test was applied to the disclosure request. The face of the 4 October order (recital 4) records that the court “needs” the information. I reject the suggestion that I would have sanctioned a disclosure order against the SSHD, or any other third party, unless satisfied there was a genuine necessity.

 

 

However, SO15, and the SSHD (Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the Home Secretary) had an ace up their sleeve. Counsel representing the SSHD made it clear that if the Court wanted to press ahead with an order for disclosure, the Home Secretary would sign a Public Interest Immunity certificate which would prevent the disclosure of any material.  There’s a process for the PII certificate to be reviewed by the Court, but none of the parties would see the basis on which it was asserted that disclosure would be against the national interest.

 

Rock, I’d like you to meet Hardplace, Hardplace, this is the Rock.  I’ll just stand between the both of you.

 

In a game of Rock Paper Scissors, the Rock wins every round

In a game of Rock Paper Scissors, the Rock wins every round

 

Obviously the family Court don’t want to trample on national security and of course security services don’t want to cough up in detail why they happen to be watching the father and what led them to do so and what they have found out about who he is talking to, because that could jeopardise all sorts of other important and sensitive and possibly life-threatening/life-saving operations.   And given that the family Courts have so far ended all of the radicalisation cases with the children remaining with the parents, one can see why SO15 don’t consider that it is worth taking those risks with sensitive information given the likely final resolution of any individual case.   (At present it rather seems as though you are better off  in care proceedings as a parent being in contact with ISIS members than letting your ten year old child shoot terrorists on Call of Duty, but that’s just my cynical jaded take on it)

On the other hand, there are children here and the Local Authority can’t obtain orders to protect them without having evidence to show why they need to be protected and the parents can’t refute the allegations about them without knowing what they are.

 

The Judge left the disclosure orders in place, indicating that when and if the Home Secretary issued a PII certificate, that would be the time for consideration of whether the reasons on the PII certificate outweighed the need for disclosure.  If there is no disclosure, presumably the application will have to be withdrawn, as the LA have no evidence that could prove threshold.

 

This was always going to be the difficult issue in radicalisation cases and whilst the President’s guidance works very hard to find a solution, I’m just not sure that there is one. If you are a Local Authority who receives that sort of tip-off, what the hell are you supposed to do with it?  If you issue, you’ll hit this road-block and the proceedings will be dropped, and if you don’t and something happens, the Daily Mail will be eating you alive.  It’s a complete hospital pass by the Security Services.

 

What’s the alternative? Amend the Children Act 1989 to allow SO15 to issue care proceedings of their own? Run a family Court equivalent of the Closed Material Procedure Courts that operate in alleged terrorism offences in the criminal Courts?  They are hugely controversial in crime  (and if you’re interested in more about them I recommend Ian Cobain’s book “The History Thieves”  where he describes the AB and CD case, with the jury being told that if they ever discussed any of the evidence in the case they could themselves be punished by two years imprisonment and the incredible stipulations on journalists whose notebooks were taken each day, were prohibited from writing notes outside the Courtroom after hearing the evidence and not being able to tell their readers any of the important details in the case)

 

I certainly can’t claim to have a solution, but it is an obvious problem.

 

 

 

Well, up against quite a lot of competition, here is the worst case of the year (breach of fair trail, HRA damages, scandal)

 

Oh this is a BAD one.  LA social worker, lawyer, and to an extent counsel take a kicking, as do the police.  If you work for Wakefield, I’d skip this one.   Everyone else, I’m afraid this is a must read.

 

GD and BD (Children) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/3312.html

 

 

  • There are before the court two linked applications brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. The first application in time (10 December 2015) was filed by two children, namely GD, a girl now aged 9, and BD, a boy now aged 4. The second application (18 December 2015) was filed by their mother (MD). In each case the Claimants seek awards of damages and declarations. The claims arise from the conduct of two public authorities, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (hereafter “the Local Authority”) and West Yorkshire Police, in the context of public law proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 between February and November 2015. In each case the claims for damages have been agreed – with the public authorities each agreeing to pay one-half of the agreed sum: £10,000 for the mother, and (subject to the court’s approval) £5,000 for each child. Significant concessions have been made by both authorities since the proceedings began, and these in large measure establish the grounds for the declarations.
  • I have attached to this judgment, as Annex A and Annex B, a composite schedule of the concessions by the respondent authorities.
  • Annex C contains an Executive Summary of this judgment.
  • Additional to the formal concessions, the Local Authority has also sent a full letter of apology to the mother (dated 28 June 2016). In that letter, the Local Authority acknowledges that the allegations which it made in the proceedings against the mother, namely that she was a sexual risk to her children as a result of having perpetrated gross sexual act on her daughter, were “horrendous”; the authority confirms that it accepts “without reservation” that MD did not abuse her daughter or allow her daughter to be abused by the father. I do not regard it as appropriate to annex this letter to the judgment, but note its contents. The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police has openly apologised to the Claimants (see Annex B [11] below).

 

This whole debacle sprang from the police, as part of a wider child pornography investigation, discovered 5000 indecent images of children on the father’s computer in April 2015  and the father was arrested.  One of those images was a 30 second video clip of a woman abusing a child.

The police formed a suspicion that the woman was the mother, and that the child was one of the two children of those two parents. T  Obviously, there were legitimate grounds to believe that the children were at risk from the father (though his arrest removed him from the home).   He later pleaded guilty and was imprisoned. The suspicion that the woman in the video was the mother and that the victim was one of the children was something that had to be properly investigated.

DS Hudson, leading the investigation on behalf of the Child Sexual Exploitation and Abusive Image Unit of the West Yorkshire Police, considered that Woman X bore a striking resemblance to MD, and that Girl Y a remarkable likeness to GD. DS Hudson in liaison with his colleagues in the imaging unit commissioned the creation of a superimposition montage which allowed the picture of Girl Y to be overlaid on a picture of GD; this appeared to confirm their lay view.

 

  • Some ten months later, on 25 February 2015, DS Hudson shared the information which the police had gathered with representatives of children’s services at Wakefield MDC. The social worker who attended the relevant strategy meeting noted that DS Hudson declared himself to be “90%” sure that the woman in the video was MD; he was later to say (same source) that he considered that the child in the still image was GD “to a 99% probability”. This evidence (involving the percentages) infiltrated other discussions, and were attributed to DS Hudson. DS Hudson was later to deny having used percentages as recorded, but having heard from SW1 and DS Hudson, I reject his denial; I am satisfied that this statement, and the percentages referred to, reflected his actual view of the probability of MD and GD being captured in the images, and that he expressed himself in this way. Later that afternoon, DS Hudson and SW1 (social worker) attended the family home; DS Hudson arrested MD and FD on suspicion of assaulting a girl under the age of 13, and of possession of multiple indecent images of children. The West Yorkshire Police exercised powers of protection and the children, GD and BD, were placed in foster care; on the following day, the Local Authority commenced care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989.
  • The children were to remain in foster care until 13 December 2015.

 

Skipping ahead, at the final hearing, the police officer gave evidence over a 3 day period, and in the course of this evidence, counsel instructed by the Local Authority decided that he had to withdraw from the case.

 

  • On 20 November 2015 DS Hudson concluded his evidence, which had been taken over three days, having been questioned by all of the advocates about his pivotal role in the investigation and his account of who knew what and when. At the conclusion of the second day, Mr. Shiels had invited the judge to allow the officer to be treated as a hostile witness; it was increasingly apparent that DS Hudson directly contradicted Mr. Shiels’ personal recollection of events, and was casting blame for the lack of disclosure on others. When the hearing resumed on 23 November, Mr. Shiels indicated his intention to withdraw from the case. He explained his position to HHJ Anderson thus:

 

“I have reflected upon my position as advocate for the Local Authority and taken into account any potential conflict between my duty to present the Local Authority’s case as it ought to be presented and my interesting reflections upon my own professional standing. The way in which DS Hudson gave his evidence created a conflict between those two matters, and it also raises implications which I have thought through and taken consultation on with a senior colleague as of the further presentation of the Local Authority’s case and, in particular, the social worker’s evidence… The Local Authority must be represented by someone who does not face that particular conflict.”

Substitute counsel was instructed and two days later, the Local Authority indicated to the court its intention to undertake a “wholesale amendment” of its threshold Schedule of Facts. On the same day it confirmed its plan for the children to be returned home to the mother’s care, a position endorsed by the Children’s Guardian.

The children returned home on 13 December 2015.

 

 

There then followed this Human Rights Act claim, which is what the judgment chiefly deals with. The case really turns on the point at which the suspicion that the woman in the video was the mother and the victim was the child became not a suspicion that had to be properly investigated, but a ‘hunch’ which the evidence was contradicting, and whether the evidence that undermined that claim was properly shared with the Court and the parents.  The importance of that, of course, is that a case where father was downloading indecent material is a case that could be managed by the mother separating from him, whereas an addition that mother had been abusing one of the children would rule that out as an option. It was an extremely grave and important allegation.

 

Here are the Court findings in relation to that (I’ll come back to some of the important, and shocking detail)

 

Findings: Local Authority:

 

  • In my judgment, this Local Authority has rightly conceded that it unlawfully interfered with the Article 6 and Article 8 rights of the Claimants in a number of material respects. The Local Authority was not swift in acknowledging its faults; the Defence filed in February 2016 makes minimal concessions. However, I have noted and recorded the concessions which are now made, and insofar as is necessary deal with the particulars in the paragraphs which follow.
  • Suspension of contact: For a period of time, all contact between the children and their parents was suspended, and when restored, it was heavily circumscribed. The temporary but total severance of the relationship between the children and their parents was a serious step at the point at which the children were removed from their parents’ care; while there may have been sound reasons for this initially, while the police investigation was at an early stage, the Local Authority is right to concede that it should have done more to test the necessity of this suspension continuing for more than a day or so. The CA 1989 imposes duties on them which were not observed (see section 34(1) and section 22(4) CA 1989; there was limited facility to the authority to refuse contact and only for a time-limited period (7 days) where “they [were] satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare” (section 34(6))). The police were in my judgment slow-paced in deciding whether to conduct ABE interviews of the children, before deciding not to do so. The Local Authority should have been proactive in testing the police’s decision-making at an earlier stage.
  • Disclosure: There were, regrettably, repeated failures on behalf of both public authorities to effect disclosure of relevant documents and information in this case. It is well known that it is the duty of the parties and their legal advisers to give full and frank disclosure of all relevant material unless one of the well-established principles of privilege or public interest immunity apply. It is incumbent on a Local Authority to present its case properly, fairly and with due regard to the principles of Article 6 of the ECHR.
  • My view is that the failures of disclosure in this case largely derive from the conduct of the West Yorkshire Police (see below). However, I am satisfied that the Local Authority solicitor, Ms McMullan failed:

 

i) To disclose to the respondent parents and Guardian the information which she learned in conference on 21 August 2015 namely that the short video was (or was likely to be) of American origin; although I am satisfied that this information was conveyed to the Local Authority team by DS Hudson only in passing, this was nonetheless crucial evidence and its existence had registered sufficiently with Ms McMullan for her to write to Mr. Shiels many weeks later, in November, to ask his view about it;

ii) To respond to the mother’s solicitors’ request for “any other relevant information about the police evidence that would assist me in putting my client’s case” (9 September 2016), with the information that the video had a US provenance (even if she had expressed this only as a possibility);

iii) To ensure that the likely American provenance of the short video was referred to in the Local Authority Opening Note; it is clear that Ms McMullan was conscious of this fact as she had e-mailed Mr. Shiels about it only shortly (10 November) before the hearing;

iv) To respond more fully and generally to the questions (concerning police disclosure) from the mother’s solicitor in September 2015;

v) To disclose the superimposition montage to the respondent parents and children on or shortly after 17 September. This omission is particularly serious given that:

a) There was a court hearing on the day after it had been shown (18 September) and it was not mentioned;

b) Ms McMullan had not responded to the mother’s solicitors’ letter requesting disclosure made only days earlier.

Opportunity was thereby lost for the parties to assess this evidence, and to seek Ms Pestell’s view of the montage. The mother’s case is that the failure to disclose this evidence was “secretive, tactical, and unfair”; I do not accept those particular criticisms. I find that the failure to disclose this information was symptomatic of a lack of coordinated, structured, organised approach to the preparation of the case. It is rightly conceded that this contributed to the breaches of the Claimants’ Article 6 rights (Annex A[1](d) below).

 

  • I find that the failure to make prompt and/or complete disclosure materially compromised the ability of the legal teams for the Claimants to prepare their cases. It seems to me that if a more conscientious approach had been taken and had disclosure been made in a timely and appropriate way, the Claimants’ solicitors would have been able to press for the Local Authority to re-evaluate its case, potentially by restoring the matter before the court for early determination of the appropriateness of continued interim care orders.
  • Evidence: The Local Authority was under a duty to place clear and impartial/balanced evidence before the Court. Two witness statements fell under scrutiny in this hearing: those of DS Hudson and SW1. The preparation of the witness statement of DS Hudson was wholly unbecoming of a serious investigation such as this, fell well below ordinary standards of professionalism in its compilation, and the end result was a document which was neither fair nor balanced. There is no or no material evidence that either Ms McMullan or Mr Shiels really addressed themselves to that issue. The Local Authority cannot escape the fact that the written request of DS Hudson to provide only evidence in his statement which was incriminating of the mother caused his contribution to be distorted and partial. I understand and accept that Mr Shiels had addressed his mind only to reminding Ms McMullan of certain matters which ought to be included in the statement, and that his e-mail was

 

“… intended simply to be a helpful reminder to my instructing solicitor that DS Hudson should include those particular matters when preparing his statement. I was not advising or purporting to advise on the overall content of the statement and I did not advise that anything should be omitted.”

But, as I say, the predictable consequence was that the statement was neither comprehensive nor was it fair to the mother (and children). This materially contributed to the biased picture created by the public authorities, which reinforced and aggravated their other failings. It does not require me to spell out to these experienced lawyers what the statement of DS Hudson should have looked like. Charles J in Re R (Care: Disclosure: Nature of Proceedings) [2002] 1 FLR 755 at p.772 commented on the importance of:

“… a proper discussion with the relevant witnesses to ensure, so far as possible, that their statements contain a full and proper account of the relevant matters, which include the central matters seen or heard by that witness, the sources of hearsay being recorded by that witness, and the relevant background to and the circumstances in which the matters set out took place; and … a proper consideration of what further information or material should be obtained.”

 

 

With this in mind, the Judge had to consider whether there was bad faith on the part of the Local Authority – in layman’s terms, had they been careless or had they been actively trying to ‘fit up’ this mother?

 

 

  • Generally: The Claimants do not specifically assert that the Local Authority set out to mislead the court, or create a false case against the parents. They pleaded a case based on bias; they assert that the Local Authority was partisan and conducted itself in a way which was incompatible with its role in dispassionately analysing evidence and adopting a child-focused stance in line with the evidence. They have maintained that the Local Authority legal team, Ms McMullan and Mr. Shiels, lost objectivity in their professional conduct in this case, and as a consequence focused on only those aspects of the case which were adverse to, or implicated, the parents, and not those parts which might serve to exonerate them.
  • While I accept that the Local Authority representatives failed dispassionately to analyse the evidence, and tended to focus on those parts which were adverse to the mother, I don’t accept entirely the other criticisms. It seems to me that other factors were in play:

 

i) The Local Authority could only work with the information which they themselves received from the police; this disclosure was made piecemeal, late, and often in an incomplete form; this hampered the proper evaluation and presentation of the case;

ii) The Local Authority solicitor, Ms McMullan failed to take a co-ordinating role in relation to the evidence and/or the structure of the case; I sensed that she reacted to the requirements of the timetable and the demands of her client and never proactively managed the case; she ended up as a fire-fighter and appeared to rely heavily on Mr. Shiels for all decision-making. I do not believe that her conduct fell below an ordinary professional standard (and she did not lose ‘objectivity’ as was alleged), she simply did not rise to the demands of running a complex case, did not challenge decisions, and did not develop a sense of what the case was and where it was going. Had she undertaken her role with more attention to the detail of the case, I am sure that the US provenance of the video would have received greater prominence in her thinking. Her “oversight” in failing to disclose the montage may have been the result of a demanding caseload.

iii) For a complex case, it was regrettable that the key social worker (SW1) was so inexperienced; indeed, she had not dealt with a sexual abuse case before. She gave the appearance (in her evidence to me, which chimed with the transcript of her evidence before HHJ Anderson) of someone who was struggling with the case. I felt that she was probably rather impressionable, and could possibly be (or at least feel) pressurised by her seniors or others; she told HHJ Anderson that she was advised by her manager and the legal department that the Local Authority was going to take a particular line in the case, albeit that it did not accord with her view (see the quote from the e-mail at [33] above). She described herself in that earlier hearing as “just part …I am the social worker part of the process”, and disputed that she had instructed the department “to seek findings”. She said that she had not been party to any conversation about the obtaining of expert evidence to counter the LGC Forensics paper, although would have expected to be so. The Guardian picked up this dynamic; he felt that SW1 had been “instructed” by her legal team to take the line she did in relation to the case, perhaps against her better judgment. I concur with the Guardian’s analysis.

 

  • I do not believe that there was any evidence of professional misconduct or negligence on the part of the Local Authority lawyer or social worker; nor do I consider that there was a loss of objectivity, as alleged. Regrettably I sensed that the Local Authority’s case management was rudderless, lacking in supervision, hampered by a lack of clear information, overly influenced by DS Hudson’s misguided perception of the case, at times incoherent, and (as I indicated above: [91](ii)) almost always reactive rather than proactive.

 

 

 

I said that I would come back to some of the detail, and it is important.

 

Bear in mind that the care proceedings began on 27th February 2015 and the investigation was ongoing.  A key part of that would obviously be the forensic analysis of the video – since whether or not the perpetrator and victim looked like mother and child wasn’t sufficient, there needed to be closer analysis.

On 31 March 2015 Ms Jacqueline Pestell of LGC Forensics contacted DS Hudson, and gave him an oral report of the results of the facial mapping exercise; it is a little unclear precisely what was said. Ms Pestell maintains that she advised DS Hudson over the phone that MD could be “eliminated” as the woman in the video; this indeed was the account given by DS Hudson in his first statement in these proceedings. LGC’s internal note refers to the differences observed in the images, making them “unreconcilable” (sic). DS Hudson was advised in the same call that MD’s sister was a better match. In a later written statement in these proceedings DS Hudson doubted that the word ‘eliminated’ had in fact been used but confirmed that he was advised that the sister was a better suspect, and that in the circumstances there was little if any prospect of pursuing charges against MD. It is in fact formally conceded now that the police treated MD as being ‘eliminated’ from this the time (see Defence filed on behalf of West Yorkshire Police, and see Annex B [2] below)). Interestingly, in oral evidence, DS Hudson repeatedly used the word ‘eliminated’ to describe the effect of the information he had been given at this stage, and on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that this is indeed what he was told by LGC.

 

Obviously if the Forensic Analysis ‘eliminated’ the mother as the perpetrator in the video, that was a vital piece of information.  (As the Judge says later, these cases are trial by Judge, not trial by expert, but it was a vital piece of information, even if the LA case was ‘the forensic analysis is wrong and we want the Court to test that evidence’)

The police had not properly communicated that to the LA.

 

  • On 7 May 2015, at the next court hearing listed before Moylan J, the Local Authority informed the court (per position statement) that facial mapping analysis “may have led” the police to believe that the images on the short video were not of the mother. West Yorkshire Police concede that by this time, the Local Authority were still not aware that the mother had been ‘eliminated’ on expert analysis, and nor was Moylan J when he made his further order for disclosure.

 

 

The case moved further forward, when the police obtained evidence to show that the video was in fact created in America, and was thus not a video of this child, nor the perpetrator anyone in this family.  Important to keep in mind that it was still a video of child abuse, which had been on father’s computer, so the concerns about father remained very live ones. But realistically, the risk of the mother as a perpetrator had disappeared, but the allegations had not been dropped.

 

  • By 4 June 2015, LGC Forensics had also excluded MD’s sister as Woman X. West Yorkshire Police informed the Local Authority of this. However, when the social worker (SW1) spoke with an officer of the West Yorkshire Police on 8 June, she was advised that the police were still in some doubt about the evidence and could not confirm that no criminal charges would arise as a result of these images; on the following day, DS Hudson wrote to the social worker in these terms: “the results back from the Forensic Company has not been able to confirm the identity of [MD] or [her sister]” as Woman X (this phrase did not in my view faithfully reflect what DS Hudson had been told), adding that the mapping work in relation to GD/Girl Y had not yet concluded. MD recalls that at this point she was simply advised that the facial mapping exercise had proved “inconclusive”, not that she had been eliminated.
  • On 10 June, there was a major development in the police investigation. DFI, one of the experts in the Digital Forensic Department working on an unrelated investigation, located a video recording of approximately eight minutes’ duration, of which the short video of Woman X (which had been the focus of enquiry in this investigation, identified in [12](i) above) was clearly an extract; the longer (eight minute) video showed clearly the identities of those participating in the recorded activity, and revealed beyond question that MD was not Woman X. It was further clear (from incidental detail in the footage) that the video had been recorded in the United States of America, not in West Yorkshire. DFI e-mailed DS Hudson asking him to call, as he has “information about [Woman X]”. DS Hudson was (it is agreed) on leave on that day and it appears that he did not in fact make the call on that day; it is not clear when DS Hudson returned the telephone call to DFI, but I am satisfied (on DS Hudson’s own evidence) that it was not long after DS Hudson’s return from leave on 22 June. In that call, I find that DFI gave DS Hudson sufficient detail about the longer video for him to know that MD was definitively not Woman X. From that point on, he told me that it was “cast iron” that MD was exonerated and he was then fixed with this knowledge.

 

 

This then becomes very difficult reading. I’m squirming even as I cut and paste this in.  This is exactly the sort of stuff that staunch critics of Local Authorities believe happens all the time, and it is genuinely sickening to see it play out for real.  It is awful to read this.   The underlining here is the Judge’s.  I would underline more, for emphasis, but I don’t want to lose those portions.  It is just awful, I’m afraid.

 

 

  • At a further court hearing on the following day (11 June 2015), counsel for the local authority, Mr Ian Shiels, reports (and I accept) that when the police representative was asked whether the facial mapping report (not yet disclosed) was required for interviews of the parents, the reply was “probably yes”; this is, as it now transpires, a surprising response given what is now known of the conclusions of the report. On 15 June 2015 the West Yorkshire Police received the written report from LGC Forensics which confirmed beyond question that MD was not Woman X. The report further confirmed that GD was not Girl Y, the child in the still image ([12](ii) above).
  • On 24 June 2015, on his return from leave, DS Hudson e-mailed the Local Authority social worker SW1 confirming that GD had been “eliminated” as Girl Y (the girl captured on the still image); DS Hudson confirmed that he told the social worker that the only active line of enquiry was in relation to the other images captured on the family computer. The contents of the LGC report were not shared with the mother for more than two more weeks (9 July) – see [27] below). On the following day (25 June), DS Hudson sent this important e-mail to the Local Authority solicitor, Ms McMullan:

 

“At this time there is no plan to interview [GD]. Even though the facial mapping has not identified [GD] I would still like to put the image [i.e. the still image] to the parents in interview should one of them id [identify] [GD] then she will need to be interviewed to see if she can recall the incident. I do not want this information giving (sic.) to the parents as stated I am looking to bring them in early next week.” (emphasis by underlining added).

On receipt of this e-mail, Ms McMullan, the Local Authority Solicitor, e-mailed the social work team manager as follows:

“…I’m not confident in what [DS Hudson] is saying is entirely accurate. It may be that they want to trick the parents in interview? I really don’t want to speculate …” (emphasis by underlining added).

 

  • On 9 July, the parents were interviewed by the West Yorkshire Police for the second time; both denied possession of the indecent images, and the mother denied recently destroying the computer hard-drive (per the Kodak photograph). As planned, the still image of Girl Y was put to the parents, who each in turn disputed that it was GD. Following the interview, the mother (MD) was eliminated from the investigation (a point which was confirmed in an e-mail of the same date to the social workers: “[MD] has now been eliminated from the investigation”), whereas the father (FD) was charged with six sample counts of making indecent images of children. On the same day, the West Yorkshire Police provided the 40-page and detailed LGC Forensic report to all parties; this confirmed that there was “no support” for the contention that MD was Woman X, nor that GD was Girl Y. The West Yorkshire Police further disclosed the image of MD allegedly destroying the computer hard drive. At court on the following day, Andrew Garthwaite, solicitor for the West Yorkshire Police recounted that “the Police position that the female in the video was not [MD] was clearly stated…”; he says that he spoke with Ian Shiels at court, who in turn indicated his wish to view the short video. This arose because Mr. Shiels detected some lack of confidence in the expert report among those who had commissioned it; Mr Garthwaite acknowledges that at that time he may well have said to Mr Shiels that he recognised the similarities between Woman X and MD and “couldn’t preclude the possibility that another facial mapping exercise might generate different findings”. Ms McMullan told me that Mr Shiels had reported to her an air of scepticism among the advocates about the reliability of the facial mapping report. In that regard, Mr Shiels followed up the discussions at court with an e-mail to Ms McMullan the following day in these terms:

 

“When I read the facial mapping experts report yesterday my thoughts were that this scuppered any case that the mother had been abusing a child or that [GD] had been abused… But I would like to think about it further…”

Mr. Shiels went on to describe the mother’s account of the dating of the Kodak photograph (i.e. that it was an old photo) as “plainly rubbish” (a view derived I believe from the fact that it had been assumed that all of the images on the computers had been captured when the computers were seized in 2014, and this one had only appeared since that time). His e-mail further alluded to the difference in standard of proof between the criminal and civil processes, and the need to look at the primary evidence and not be “led entirely by expert opinion, which need not necessarily be right”. He acknowledged that the conclusion of the LGC Forensics report was “a problem” but not “necessarily an insuperable one”.

 

  • On 10 July, at court, SW1 recorded that the parents told her that they were separating “out of necessity, not because they want to”, a view which they confirmed on 13 July at a social work home visit. This is relevant to the issue of continuing potential risk posed by the mother to the children, irrespective of her role as possible perpetrator.
  • On or about 14 July, Ms McMullan and Mr Garthwaite spoke by telephone. They plainly discussed the content of LGC Forensics facial mapping report, and the Local Authority’s willingness to consider a second expert opinion; the cost of obtaining such a report (c.£40k) was alluded to. Following this call, Mr Garthwaite sent an e-mail to DS Hudson (21 July) which included the following:

 

“I had a request from the local authority solicitor Annie McMullan last week as to whether or not you would be prepared for the local authority barrister, Ian Shiels, to be allowed to watch the indecent video(s) involving alleged mother and alleged [GD]? The reason for the request is that the local authority are keen to do all they can to secure the children in this case and are prepared to spend £40k+ in order to have the video analysed themselves to try and pin a case against the parents“. (emphasis by underlining added)

Mr Garthwaite apologised at this hearing for his choice of language in this e-mail; he could not be sure that Ms McMullan had not used the phrase ‘pin a case’, and in fairness, she could not rule out the possibility either, although thought it unlikely. Mr Garthwaite wished to emphasise that the language was not designed to give any indication that the Local Authority were in any way engaged in any impropriety by manufacturing a case against the parents.

 

  • On 23 July, DS Hudson replied to Mr. Garthwaite informing him that he was intending to view the second (longer) video which had been located by DFI, the Digital Forensic Investigator, and would be doing so “this morning” (records show that DFI had made a copy of it on 22 July in preparation). DS Hudson told me in evidence that he did not in fact go to the forensics laboratory to view it on that day on account of “operational commitments”, but only viewed the longer video a month later on 24 August. DS Hudson told the court in November 2015 that he believed he had viewed the longer video in or around June or soon after 23 July 2015. The evidence of DFI was that DS Hudson viewed the longer video “around” June/July, but at the latest “the first part of August”. Later, within the evidence filed in these proceedings, DFI went some way to confirming DS Hudson’s account that he did not view the longer video until 24 August (linking it with recalling having e-mailed him in relation to a ‘personal matter’), though acknowledged that he only “vaguely remembers” the events. It is not material to establish precisely when DS Hudson viewed the longer video; I cannot find on the evidence that he did in fact view it before 24 August. As I have said earlier (see [24] above), he was fixed with the knowledge of the mother’s certain innocence by the end of June 2015. On my reading of the e-mail traffic, this is the only e-mail passing between DS Hudson and Mr Garthwaite about the second (longer) video (see also [99] below). Mr. Garthwaite reports that he did not appreciate the significance of the second (longer) video at this time.
  • On the same day (23 July), Mr Shiels sent Ms McMullan, his instructing solicitor, a draft schedule of the findings which he proposed that the Local Authority should seek within the care proceedings. Specifically, at paragraph 7 and 8, the schedule reads as follows:

 

“[GD] is the child in the indecent still image recovered from the [family] computer tower. She has therefore been sexually abused by being involved in the creation of images of child abuse.

[MD] is the woman shown in the video recovered from the [family] computer tower sexually abusing a female child … it is likely that the person taking the video is [FD] and the child is [GD].”

In the e-mail, Mr. Shiels records himself as “unconvinced” by the analysis of the facial mapping expert: “to me, it just looks like mother and [GD]. I think the original instinct of the police that they were 90% sure is correct.” At the foot of the e-mail attaching the schedule, Mr Shiels states: “If you and [SW1] are okay with it, it can be served (which we are supposed to do tomorrow)”.

 

  • On 29 July, Ms McMullan chased a response from Mr. Garthwaite by e-mail persisting in her request for disclosure; on 17 August Mr. Shiels chased again (also by e-mail) for the police’s disclosure. This disclosure was said to have been delivered by the police to the Local Authority on or about 20 August.
  • On 31 July, SW1 met with her team manager, and explained to her that she would be concerned about giving evidence in the case as she did not believe that MD was Woman X nor that GD was Girl Y; the expert evidence had, she thought, made this “abundantly clear”. To recap, the Local Authority knew of the conclusions of the LGC Forensics report by this stage, but not of the existence (let alone the significance) of the longer video. The note of the manager reflects inaccurately that “The woman [on the video] is believed to be mum (90% certainty following facial recognition)”; it is not clear to me whether that information had been incorrectly understood by the social work team or whether the note of the conversation is inaccurate. On that day the team manager wrote to the solicitor as follows:

 

“I am just in supervision with [SW1], having an update regarding this case. On consulting the attached schedule, we are not in agreement with the sections numbered 6 & 7. [SW1] is certain that the child in the images concerned is NOT [GD]. Furthermore, she is doubtful that the adult female is mother. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to give evidence to state otherwise… I am aware that the police are not intending to conduct an ABE interview of [GD], so do we need to make a decision at this point as to whether we pursue our own by an ABE trained social worker?” (emphasis in capitals in the original: emphasis by underlining added. Note also that reference to “6 & 7” is an erroneous reference to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule: see above).

Later that day, Ms McMullan telephoned the team manager to seek to reassure her that the Local Authority had proper grounds to proceed on the basis of the video and still image, given that the standard of proof was different in the family court and the criminal court. It appears that a conference was then arranged with counsel in order to discuss the social worker’s concerns. This took place on 13 August. Strangely, none of the notes of the conference record any conversation about the social worker’s concerns. Mr Shiels told me that he recalled no specific conversation about these concerns.

 

 

That schedule of findings is worth going back to :-

 

  • On the same day (23 July), Mr Shiels sent Ms McMullan, his instructing solicitor, a draft schedule of the findings which he proposed that the Local Authority should seek within the care proceedings. Specifically, at paragraph 7 and 8, the schedule reads as follows:

“[GD] is the child in the indecent still image recovered from the [family] computer tower. She has therefore been sexually abused by being involved in the creation of images of child abuse.

[MD] is the woman shown in the video recovered from the [family] computer tower sexually abusing a female child … it is likely that the person taking the video is [FD] and the child is [GD].”

In the e-mail, Mr. Shiels records himself as “unconvinced” by the analysis of the facial mapping expert: “to me, it just looks like mother and [GD]. I think the original instinct of the police that they were 90% sure is correct.” At the foot of the e-mail attaching the schedule, Mr Shiels states: “If you and [SW1] are okay with it, it can be served (which we are supposed to do tomorrow)”.

 

Clearly, if there had been full and transparent sharing of information, the fact that the forensic analysis had indicated that neither of the persons in the video were members of the family and that the footage emerged from America  (there was an 8 minute long video from America, of which this was a 30 second snippet, and the longer video obviously gave more material to work from) meant that the LA could not realistically pursue those findings. The question is, did they know that?

 

 

  • On 21 August, two important events occurred in the history of this case.

 

i) First, at a hearing before HHJ Lynch during the morning the West Yorkshire Police were ordered (for a further time) to disclose information to the parties about the Kodak photograph, including any information about the date of its creation, storage, and assessment. This direction had been anticipated by Mr. Shiels who earlier in the morning had e-mailed DS Hudson requesting information about the Kodak photograph and the date of the folders in which it was stored;

ii) Secondly, in the early afternoon, a conference took place at Mr Shiels’ Chambers; those in attendance were Mr Shiels, Ms McMullan, DS Hudson, and SW1, although SW1 was late in arriving. I deal with the conference in some detail (below).

There is some dispute about precisely what was said at this conference. DS Hudson’s evidence is that he told those present at the meeting that a second (longer) video had been found in a separate investigation and that its country of origin was America; he accepted in evidence before me that he may not have spelled out as clearly as he should that this video ruled MD out as a perpetrator of abuse beyond question. When questioned about this at the hearing before HHJ Anderson in November he accepted that he did not make this clear. On nobody’s account of the meeting was the American origin of the video “discussed” as DS Hudson (misleadingly in my view) told HHJ Anderson during his earlier evidence on no fewer than three occasions. The Local Authority maintains (and the contemporaneous notes of the conference support this) that DS Hudson had indicated in the meeting that there was a possibility that the (shorter) video may have originated from America (“origin might be US”); he was asked to clarify this and he agreed to make further enquiries of DFI.

 

  • During the viewing of the short video at the conference, DS Hudson (and this much is agreed by Ms McMullan and Mr. Shiels), pointed out that Woman X was wearing an unusual blue watch, and informed them that this had not been found during the searches of the family home. Self-evidently it would not have been found in MD’s home, as MD was not Woman X, as DS Hudson well knew. The officer also pointed out that Woman X was wearing a ring on the same finger as MD – again, ostensibly establishing a link between the two, which he knew was merely coincidental.
  • At the conference, DS Hudson apparently described the superimposition process which had been conducted in or about February 2015, and confirmed that the montage (of Girl Y and GD) was still in the possession of the police. DS Hudson’s evidence to me was that by the end of the conference he believed that the Local Authority was proposing:

 

i) to allege within the care proceedings that GD was Girl Y in the still image (and had therefore been directly involved in the abuse), but that

ii) the authority had no intention of seeking to argue that MD was Woman X.

As it happens, he gave different evidence before HHJ Anderson in November 2015, indicating that by the time he prepared his witness statement, he knew/believed that the Local Authority was pursuing a finding that MD was Woman X. He thought that the Local Authority was proposing to argue that MD had destroyed the hard drive and therefore evidence of indecent images. The account he gave before HHJ Anderson was, in my judgment, more plausible.

 

  • SW1 recalls no conversation about, or mention of, America during the conference, which, if she is right, suggests that any such mention may well have occurred before she arrived (which was later than the others), and indeed I so find. Ms McMullan now indicates that she regrets not writing to Mr Garthwaite after the conference to clarify the “throwaway remark” about the origin of the video, and specifically the reference to “America”. Significantly, she is clear that DS Hudson never mentioned then, or indeed at any time up to 18 November at court at the start of the final hearing, the existence of a second (longer) video. She believed that DS Hudson would obtain further information from DFI about the relevance of America, and revert to her. Ms McMullan maintains that had she known, or been advised, that the second video existed, that it originated in America and that MD was certainly not the woman in the short video: (a) the local authority would not have asked to view, let alone actually view, the short video, and (b) the course of the case would have been radically altered.
  • Mr Shiels shares Ms McMullan’s recollection that DS Hudson did not mention the existence of any other or longer video in the conference, and that he only mentioned, as a possibility, that the video which they had watched may have originated in America, though (says Mr. Shiels) DS Hudson did not appear clear about this and laid no great emphasis upon it. Mr Shiels believes that it would have been perfectly plain to DS Hudson from the discussion at the conference that the Local Authority was going to maintain its case (set out in the schedule – see [31] above) that MD was Woman X; accordingly, Mr. Shiels felt that the video was pivotal in being able to prove that fact, notwithstanding the expert report from LGC Forensics. Mr Shiels did not understand from DS Hudson’s comments that the video had actually been filmed in America (as in fact is proven to be the case) but wondered whether the reference to America was to a shared computer file with an American partner. He recalls the reference to the watch, and to DS Hudson confirming that the police search of the family home had not produced the item. At his request, all existing records relating to police searches of the family’s home was sought as disclosure, and were indeed disclosed. At the conclusion of the conference, Mr Shiels asked DS Hudson if he could prepare a witness statement for the CA 1989 proceedings. Mr. Shiels describes the “focus” of the meeting as:

 

“… assessing the strength of the local authority’s case and therefore the focus was on obtaining from DS Hudson information which would or could support and strengthen that case.”.

I underline the passage in the quote above to highlight that it appears that the “focus” was not on collating relevant evidence which went either way.

 

  • Having heard the various accounts of the conference on 21 August, I find that at the conference:

 

i) DS Hudson did not explicitly refer to the existence of a second (longer) video; while it is possible that he and the Local Authority were speaking at cross-purposes about ‘the video’, in fact I find this omission to be deliberate;

ii) DS Hudson did not make clear to the Local Authority representatives as he should have done that the police investigation had established beyond question that MD was not Woman X;

iii) DS Hudson’s observation that the “the video” had an American origin was made only in passing; it was not “discussed” as he told HHJ Anderson. The officer did not – as he should have done, in my view given the importance of the issue – make clear to the Local Authority representatives that the video originated in the USA, and that this therefore contributed to the view that the mother could be ruled out as the perpetrator of the video-recorded abuse;

iv) By stating that the police had not found the unusual watch worn by Woman X in the mother’s home, and by pointing out Woman X wearing the ring in a similar fashion to MD, DS Hudson caused or encouraged the Local Authority to believe that the police believed or suspected that MD was indeed Woman X, or that there was a case to make that MD was Woman X, when in fact (as we now know) they knew that she was not.

 

 

The Judge does not make any criticism of the LA inviting the police officer, who was clearly a witness of fact, to a conference with counsel.  I suppose there was so much else to criticise that this got missed.  It’s not something I would imagine doing.   You can see from the judicial findings that the Judge found that DS Hudson caused or encouraged the LA to believe that the police BELIEVED that the woman in the video was the mother when in fact they KNEW she was not.

 

The lawyers in the care proceedings asked to see the longer video, and this produced a flurry of email correspondence between DS Hudson and the force solicitor, Mr Garthwaite.

 

  • On 15 September, the solicitor for the mother notified Mr. Garthwaite by e-mail that it was her intention to apply to the court for permission to instruct an expert to date the Kodak photograph; she also indicated her intention to ask the court for permission to view the short video.
  • On 17 September, an e-mail ‘conversation’ took place between Mr Garthwaite, DS Hudson and DFI. Mr Garthwaite had passed on the request by the mother’s legal team to view the short video; DFI raised a concern about this to his colleagues, saying:

 

“We’d established from another recent case of mine that it’s neither [MD] nor [GD] in the video – albeit that the female in the video does have a resemblance to [MD]. We’d technically be showing them an indecent video, of which all parties would need to be aware of and its content…”

DS Hudson asked for legal advice about the position from Mr Garthwaite who told me at this hearing that he did not appreciate until 19 November the relevance of the second (longer) video. On the basis that an order would be sought by the parties for permission to view the video, and that disclaimers would be sought, arrangements were made for the mother and her legal team to view the short video. The mother and her legal team viewed the video on 12 October. There later followed a request by the Children’s Guardian to view the video; this provoked an e-mail from DS Hudson to Mr Garthwaite:

“I’m really not happy with this, we have shown the video to [MD] and her counsel… as discussed and arranged. Now we are being asked to show this video to [GD]’s solicitor and her Guardian; we are being asked to show a Level B Child Abuse video to her Guardian. Why? What protection is in place should her Guardian react in a negative way to this abuse video? It was agreed to show the video to [MD] and her counsel on the basis that counsel has dealt with these issues in the past and [MD] had seen the video in interview. Please confirm that the police and officers involved will have no repercussions in this matter.”

Mr Garthwaite sought to offer reassurance to DS Hudson.

 

Of course, what this means is that a set of lawyers ended up watching a video which must have been graphic and dreadful to watch, when in reality, none of them needed to see it at all, because the mother and the child had both been eliminated by police enquiries as being the people in the video.  The lawyers were only watching it because the allegation was that this was the child being abused by the mother.  If there had been honesty that the video had no connection to the mother and child OTHER than it being one of 5,000 indecent matters found on father’s computer, none of them would have had to do that.    {There’s a dreadful discussion in the next paragraph where someone puts their finger on it – the father had probably picked this particular clip BECAUSE the woman in it resembled the mother, his partner.  I’m sorry, that is just truly awful}

 

We’ve had cases reported before about things being added to social work statements, and that happened here too  (I’m not talking about cleaning up typos or polishing, or suggesting a better way to word something, but insertion of things that the social worker didn’t actually agree with. )

 

 

  • On 8 October, SW1 filed her final parenting assessment report on MD with the court. It is a lengthy document extending to over 50 pages. I learned a little of the evolution of the report at the hearing. It passed through at least two editorial hands (the team manager and the Local Authority lawyer) before being filed. Ms McMullan was the final editor and included in the report a number of new sentences. She said that she asked SW1 to check the statement before signing it, having earlier “knocked [it] around a bit”; SW1 told me that she did not check it carefully and only after its filing did she read it thoroughly, and then realised that words had been added with which she was not comfortable, importing views which she did not hold.

 

 

 

The fact that the LA findings sought against mother  – that she had abused the child in that video, were completely unsustainable,  and had not actually been sustainable for about six months by the time of the final hearing, yet this only actually emerged on day one of the final hearing.

 

 

  • The final hearing began before HHJ Anderson on 17 November; no evidence was called on the first day. Following discussions between the advocates, Mr. Shiels drafted questions for LGC Forensics to answer about the superimposition montage, namely (a) whether it had been seen before and (b) whether it caused the expert to alter her analysis. As I discuss later, I find that these questions could and indeed should have been asked much earlier. On 18 November, DS Hudson and DFI attended at court to give evidence. It appears that in the pre-hearing conference outside court, DFI informed Mr Shiels of information he had known since 10 June 2015, namely that the short video had originated in America, and was an extract of a longer video. Mr. Shiels’ account from his witness statement repays rehearsing in full:

 

“I was not told that there was any other version of the video, or a “longer” video … I was very surprised to be told that the origin was clearly in America, rather than merely a possibility. I then asked if they were saying that the woman in the video was in fact probably not [MD]. [DFI] said this was so. I cannot recall if DS Hudson contributed anything to this. If he did, he did not say much. He did not dissent from what [DFI] told me. I immediately communicated this information to the other advocates and then to the court, withdrawing the Local Authority’s case that the mother was the woman in the video…. At no time prior to the 18 November had I been told of the longer video, the origin clearly being in America, and the certainty that the woman was not the mother. If I had known this at an earlier stage, I would immediately have taken the same action that I took at court and withdrawn that allegation against the mother.”

 

  • Ms McMullan’s evidence is that she had a conversation with DS Hudson; she says that she told the officer that she did not know that the video had originated in America, to which DS Hudson replied that he thought that Mr Garthwaite had told them.

 

 

 

Just when you think that things can’t get worse, they do.  It emerges that at the ABE interview of the child (which was conducted by an inexperienced social worker), the child was shown a pixelated photograph of the child in the video  (who the police KNEW was not her)

 

 

  • ABE interview: ABE interviews should always be conducted with reference to the March 2011 Guidance: “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures“. Although this guidance is advisory, and is not a legally enforceable code of conduct, as the Guide makes clear “practitioners should bear in mind that significant departures from the good practice advocated in it may have to be justified in the courts” (see §1.1). This is not the place for a detailed examination of the guidance, but it is essential reading for any professional conducting such an interview, and for those engaged in the preparation of a case which depends upon interview. It was not followed either explicitly in the work undertaken by SW1 and her colleague on 17 September 2015; the Local Authority properly concede the consequent breaches of the Claimants’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights in this regard (see Annex A[1](e)/[2](c)).
  • In this case, I question why an interview in the ABE format was taking place at all in September 2015, some seven months after the children were received into care; SW1 believed that GD “needed to tell her story”, but what story was it that she “needed” (or was being invited) to tell? Insofar as it was appropriate at all, it was not properly prepared, and the questions asked of GD reveal that the interviewers were at sea; it is to be noted that “[a] well-conducted interview will only occur if appropriate planning has taken place. The importance of planning cannot be overstated.” (§2.1). It is clear that there was minimal planning. Recent judicial commentary on ABE interviews is to be found in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re E [2016] EWCA Civ 473 at [24]-[45], which in turn endorses in large measure what Sir Nicholas Wall P had said in the case of TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17; [2011] 1 FLR 1597; the following observations are relevant to the facts of this case:

 

a) ABE interviews of children must always be conducted by professionals who have been trained to apply the ABE Guidance;

b) The fundamental principle which underlies the ABE Guidance is that those who elicit evidence from a child must conduct themselves in such a way that the child is given the maximum possible opportunity to recall freely, uninhibited by questions, what he/she is able to say.

c) The ABE Guidance emphasises (at para 3.108) that photographs (or drawings, pictures, symbols, dolls, figures and props) “should be used with caution and never combined with leading questions.”

 

  • The Local Authority is right to concede the inappropriateness of the ABE interview being conducted by inexperienced social workers, contrary to judicial and other guidance. It is further right for the Local Authority to concede that the photograph of Girl Y should never have been shown to GD. SW1 was wrong to mislead GD that the photographs were all from a “family album”; that was manifestly not so in relation to one of the pictures. One of the lowest points of this blighted history was the act of showing GD an edited version of an illegal download of a child abuse victim lying on her back with her legs apart exposing her genital area (albeit pixelated) under an entirely false pretext that the interviewers believed it was her and that the photograph had been located in a family album. I agree with the mother when she argues that it was “fundamentally wrong” for the Local Authority to interview GD in this way. Had the Children’s Guardian been aware that the interview was to be carried out in this way (and I am satisfied that he was not) he says that he would have “objected in the strongest terms”, and rightly so.
  • Showing the pixelated photograph to GD, and misleading her as to its provenance, were blatant breaches of GD’s right to be treated fairly by the Local Authority. There is no doubt that the interview itself would have been distressing to GD; the manner in which it was conducted was designed or intended, it seems to me, to produce evidence which falsely implicated the mother. If GD was “defensive” in interview (a point relied on by the Local Authority as part of its “wide canvas”) this is not entirely surprising. The Local Authority knew that GD was not Girl Y by this time and should never have proceeded in its investigation in this way. I accept the Claimants’ case that it was undignified and demeaning for this eight-year-old girl to be put through a formal interview process which was unnecessary and which sought to inveigle her into providing evidence to support a false allegation.

 

 

 

The Judge has made his findings that there was not bad faith on the part of the Local Authority, and that judicially speaking is that. I’ll keep quiet as to my own views on the matter.

 

 

The findings in relation to the police

 

Findings: West Yorkshire Police:

 

  • Disclosure: The failures of the West Yorkshire Police to comply with its duty of disclosure in this case were extensive; these failures regrettably pervaded the entire course of the case; I consider that it extended the litigation, and ultimately influenced its outcome.
  • I am satisfied that the West Yorkshire Police, and specifically (unless otherwise indicated) DS Hudson:

 

i) Repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for disclosure; those which are obvious from my review of the papers are orders made on the following dates:-

a) 27 February 2015 (this breach is acknowledged in the order of 19 March 2015);

b) 7 May 2015 (in relation to the facial mapping report; this is evident by the order of the 11 June);

c) 10 July 2015 (the order of 21 August 2015 makes clear that the Chief Constable had made only “partial disclosure” of the documents ordered to be disclosed by 17 July);

d) 21 August 2015 (the Police did not disclose by 28 August information relevant to the Kodak photograph);

e) 23 October 2015 (in relation to the Kodak photograph and the origin and date of the short video and the still image of Girl Y: this was not done until trial; although this order was directed to the Local Authority, it was contemplated by the order that the information would be provided by the police, who, indeed, were asked for it; the police e-mailed Ms McMullan indicating that it had no further evidence to submit);

ii) Failed to disclose to the Local Authority and to the mother, on or about 31 March 2015, that the mother had been “eliminated” from suspicion as Woman X, when LGC Forensics advised DS Hudson that this was so; the Police erroneously, in my judgment, initially contended that such non-disclosure was justified as it may “prejudice” the investigation and/or that “piecemeal” disclosure would have been inappropriate. That argument was subsequently abandoned. It surely cannot be justified to withhold evidence from a person accused of a crime which exonerates them. This was not ‘marginal’ evidence. The police engaged in piecemeal disclosure thereafter, thus undermining the very basis of their initial stance;

iii) Failed to make known this information (i.e. that the mother had been eliminated on the basis of the expert assessment) to the parties at court hearings which followed on 7 April, 7 May and 11 June, and which the West Yorkshire Police were legally represented (albeit not by Mr. Mallett who appeared at the hearings before me);

iv) Delayed for one month before they disclosed the LGC Forensics report to the mother and her legal team (the West Yorkshire Police received it on 12 June and only disclosed it after the interview of the mother on 9 July 2015); this report, of course, contained the clear and unequivocal conclusion that MD was not Woman X, and that GD was not Girl Y in the still image;

v) Failed to disclose (after the end of June, or by 23 July 2015 at the latest) that the second (longer) video existed, which indisputably proved that neither MD nor GD featured in the short video; (the mother and her legal team were first made aware of it on or about 18 November);

vi) Failed to disclose (after 17 September 2015, by which time the information was clear) the evidence supportive of the mother’s account that the Kodak photograph had in fact been taken in 2009; this failure was compounded by the fact that the police were in breach of disclosure orders variously made on 10 July and 21 August 2015;

vii) Failed to comply with court orders for disclosure more generally; the representation made by the West Yorkshire Police to the Local Authority after 23 October that it had no further evidence to disclose was false.

 

  • These failures derive from three essential shortcomings in the operations of the West Yorkshire Police in this case:

 

i) A failure to establish or maintain clear lines of accountability in relation to disclosure; Mr. Garthwaite has explained that he had passed on the requests for disclosure to DS Hudson and had received messages from the officer which tended to indicate that the requests had been complied with; DS Hudson believes that responsibility lay with Mr Garthwaite. There was no evidence of any audit of this process;

ii) An indifference which I detected in the evidence and in the conduct of DS Hudson to the importance of disclosure;

iii) An apparent lack of concern about compliance with Court Orders. I turn to this subject in the paragraph which follows.

 

  • Surely no party, or lawyer of any experience, in litigation of this (or any) kind still needs reminding of the importance of compliance with court orders: see what I myself have said in F v M [2015] EWHC 3259 (Fam) ([7] et seq.), and for the most recent example London Borough of Redbridge v A, B and E [2016] EWHC 2627 (Fam), published during this hearing. Case management orders are to be obeyed, to be complied with on time and to the letter, and any party finding themselves unable to comply must apply for an extension of time before the time for compliance has expired (see also Re W (Children) [2015] 1 FLR 1092). As is evident from my summary at [93](i)(a)-(e) above, this did not happen in this case. The burden of other work is not an excuse for non-compliance with the directions of the court; whatever the difficulties presented by resource issues, the court will not tolerate a failure to comply timeously with orders (see Bexley LBC v, W and D [2014] EWHC 2187). As Macdonald J in Redbridge went on to say at [12]: “Case management directions are not mere administrative pedantry”, adding:

 

“It is because a care case involves the State intervening in the family life of its citizens that it is so important that the local authority comply with the case management directions made by the court, directions that are designed to ensure the fairness of proceedings the outcome of which can be grave. Further, case management directions are the key tool by which the court maintains fidelity to the statutory principle, embodied s 1(2) of the Children Act 1989, that delay must be avoided. Within this context, local authorities are under a heavy duty to comply fully with orders of the court.” (emphasis by italics in the original).

Macdonald J’s observations apply, in my judgment, with equal force to the responsibilities of the police.

 

  • Had orders been complied with faithfully and conscientiously, the flaws in this investigation are likely to have been avoided, or at least exposed at an earlier time. Moreover, MD was put to the trouble, and the State was put to the expense, of obtaining independent expert advice about the Kodak photograph showing her destroying a hard disk drive; her expert in due course confirmed the date of creation of the photograph as 11 March 2009 – a fact known to the police for several months (March 2015), but not disclosed by them. Had the police revealed its knowledge earlier an important plank of the Local Authority’s case would have been removed, for the authority had sought to use this evidence that the mother had been, or was likely to have been, recently engaged in the business of destroying evidence (i.e. in the period between the first search of the family home and the arrest of the parents in reliance on the photograph which (it maintained) was not visible on the computer system before 2014) as part of its “wide canvas” of evidence implicating her in the abuse (see [82] above).
  • Second (longer) video: I find that DS Hudson did not inform the Local Authority (or indeed any of the other parties) of the existence of the second (longer) video until 18 November. He had multiple opportunities to do so:

 

i) As soon as he was told by the Digital Forensic Investigator, DFI, about it, which was probably by the end of June, but certainly by no later than 23 July;

ii) At Court at the hearing on the morning of 21 August 2015;

iii) At the conference with Mr. Shiels, Ms McMullan and SW1 in the afternoon of 21 August 2015;

iv) As soon as he had seen the video himself, which was at the latest on 24 August.

It is apparent, and I so find, that as at 21 July 2015 when Mr. Garthwaite sent the e-mail referred to at [29], the West Yorkshire Police were aware that (in spite of the expert evidence from LGC Forensics) the Local Authority was continuing to pursue the allegation within the care proceedings that MD was in fact Woman X in the short video.

 

  • In his evidence before HHJ Anderson and before me DS Hudson sought to divert responsibility for the failure to disclose the second (longer) video onto Mr. Garthwaite, with whom, he said, he had corresponded on the subject. I have seen no correspondence from DS Hudson to Mr. Garthwaite in which he requests that the existence of the second (longer) video be disclosed to the Local Authority, let alone the respondent parents. I reject his case about this. Regrettably, as I mention elsewhere, Mr. Garthwaite knew of the existence of the second video, but did not appreciate its significance (see [30] above).
  • The short video / the superimposition montage: It is obvious from the internal e-mails passing within the West Yorkshire Police at the material time that serious misgivings were expressed by DFI, and separately indeed by DS Hudson, to Mr. Garthwaite about the appropriateness of facilitating the viewing by the lay parties and their lawyers of the short video; this was particularly in light of the fact that it was known that this had no relevance to the investigation of, or the public law proceedings concerning, this family. The situation which arose in relation to this highlights vividly the lack of strategic leadership in the management of the joint investigation and in its relationship with the Local Authority, and the failure of Mr. Garthwaite (as the solicitor for the force) to gain an understanding of the significance of the evidence.
  • Misled the Local Authority: I am satisfied that DS Hudson caused or encouraged the Local Authority to believe that Woman X could be the mother. This is evidenced by the fact that at the conference on 21 August 2015,

 

i) He showed the short video to the Local Authority representatives (inferentially he was holding out that it had probative value in the CA 1989 proceedings):

ii) He drew attention (during the showing of the video) to the existence of the ring on the same finger on Woman X as that worn by the mother;

iii) He pointed out (during the showing of the video) the watch worn by Woman X, which – he said – was not found in the search of the house.

At that time, he knew that the mother had been definitively excluded from consideration as Woman X. Of course the watch was not found in the search of MD’s house: the woman wearing the watch was not MD. There was no significance to be attached to the ring worn by Woman X. DS Hudson knew that.

 

  • DS Hudson showed the Local Authority lawyers the superimposition montage on 17 September; the only plausible explanation for the officer presenting this evidence to the Local Authority at that time is that he was encouraging the authority to pursue a case that Girl Y was indeed GD in the still image, even though he knew that this was, on the evidence of the expert not so (and when he knew also, on his viewing of the longer video, that GD was not the girl in the video either).
  • Witness statement of DS Hudson (dated 22 September 2015): The West Yorkshire Police rightly concede that the witness statement of DS Hudson (22.9.15) was seriously misleading in both what it contains and in what it does not contain (see the concession at Annex B [6] below). I was unconvinced by DS Hudson’s protestations that he did not realise that by providing such a limited statement, and indeed by providing only the material he did, a wholly distorted view would be given of the investigation and its outcomes. It is well-established now that by the time he provided the statement, he knew that MD was not Woman X, yet the statement tended to point to the contrary conclusion. For instance, his statement includes this paragraph:

 

“The footage of the images and videos recovered from the forensic examination identified a video containing footage of a women (sic.) with the facial appearance of [MD], the face of the women (sic.) in the footage can be seen, not a common factor as those abusing children do not want to be identified, also the woman wore a ring on her right hand finger which is the same hand [MD] wears a ring as seen in other family footage of her”.

The statement further referred to DS Hudson’s belief that Girl Y bore a striking resemblance to GD. This statement drew attention only to those pieces of evidence which implicated the mother; he failed to refer to the following crucial facts:

i) By the time he signed the statement, he had undoubtedly received information that the short video was an extract of a longer video which demonstrated beyond peradventure that Woman X was not MD;

ii) The video undoubtedly originated in the USA;

iii) No watch had been found in a search of the mother’s home which matched the watch in the video;

and

iv) The police had clear evidence from LGC Forensics, which they had accepted that MD and GD had been eliminated as a match for Woman X and Girl Y respectively.

 

  • DS Hudson told HHJ Anderson that he understood the purpose of the statement was “to outline my involvement with the family”, and separately “to provide a snapshot of my investigation into [MD]”. He conceded at that hearing that he had been in “error” in providing the statement which he did. He further told HHJ Anderson that he knew at the time of providing the statement that the Local Authority was continuing to pursue the finding that MD was Woman X, a contradiction from the evidence placed before me. There was the occasional sign in his oral evidence before HHJ Anderson (of which I have the transcript) of his confused thinking, for instance posing the rhetorical question (when probed about his knowledge of the video originating in the US): “who am I to know that she has not been on holiday to America?” (later dismissed by him as a “throwaway remark” for which he apologised). It was that confused thinking, coupled with an unworthy desire to see MD proven to be Woman X, which I believe permeated his dealings with the Local Authority. At this hearing he has acknowledged that:

 

“… in providing such a limited statement, without expressly confirming the use to which it would be put, I afforded the opportunity for the Local Authority case to be progressed in the way that it was… I can see now that I was overly-reliant on the Local Authority legal representatives in dictating the content and scope of my statement…”

 

  • Failure of recording: It has been important to my investigation to know when DS Hudson viewed the second (longer) video; although I am satisfied that from 23 July at the latest he was aware from DFI that MD was not Woman X, he had not seen this with his own eyes. It is therefore a source of forensic frustration, and not inconsiderable consternation, that the evidence adduced before me revealed such lax arrangements for the recording of viewing or distribution of such highly sensitive materials. DFI made no note of when he found or viewed the second (longer) video, nor when DS Hudson viewed the second (longer) video; yet more concerning is that DS Hudson was provided with a copy of the short video and/or the longer video, but no record was made of when he was provided with them, or their ultimate whereabouts. After his retirement, the second (longer) video was found in the secure safe of his office; no steps had been taken to return it to the Digital Forensic Unit.
  • Generally: DS Hudson appeared affronted that his investigation and his conduct of it was being called into question in this enquiry. DS Hudson had, I have found (see [13] above), declared himself at the strategy meeting in February 2015 to be 90% sure that MD was Woman X, and 99% sure that GD was Girl Y. In my judgment he struggled to shake off those beliefs; the social worker had the sense that he still thought it could be the mother when he met with the Local Authority representatives on 21 August 2015. The mother recorded in her written evidence that she felt that DS Hudson strongly believed throughout the investigation that she was Woman X. When Mr. Marshall gave his evidence to HHJ Anderson in November he described DS Hudson’s reaction to seeing the longer video in July/August thus:

 

“I’d given him clear proof that it wasn’t what he thought from the start but then from there, there was also… He was still convinced of the likeness that was there…” (my emphasis by underlining)

His evidence frankly gave me the same impression.

 

  • As I say, DS Hudson believed that the Local Authority was “looking to pursue” the allegation that MD was Woman X in the care proceedings even when he knew that she was not that woman; at no time did he challenge the Local Authority as to the appropriateness of this pursuit. This belief in the mother’s likely guilt (alternatively his wish to see her proven as the perpetrator of abuse) is consistent with, and provides a unifying explanation for, his conduct in:

 

i) Failing to make clear to the Local Authority and/or to the mother at once, following his conversation with LGC Forensics on 31 March, that MD had been “eliminated” as Woman X; I have found (see [20] above) that he was given this specific information on that date;

ii) Presenting the image of Girl Y to the parents in interview in an effort to trick them (as I find) into believing that it was GD (see [26]) in an attempt to see if an incriminating response may be given;

iii) Showing the Local Authority representatives, the short video of Woman X at the conference on 21 August 2015 when he knew that it did not feature MD, and that it was made in the USA;

iv) During that presentation, on 21 August pointing up the presence of the ring on the finger of Woman X as being similar to that worn by MD;

v) Informing the Local Authority representatives at the conference that a trawl of the family home had not revealed the presence of the unusual blue watch worn by Woman X;

vi) Signing and submitting a witness statement in September 2015 which was highly selective in content and unacceptably partisan;

vii) Failing to tell the Local Authority representatives of the existence of the longer video at that or any subsequent time prior to 18 November (second day of the hearing before HHJ Anderson);

viii) Volunteering in his evidence at the hearing before HHJ Anderson that he could not confirm that the mother “hasn’t been on holiday to America” (implying that she could have been involved in the creation of the video); his later apology and dismissal of the remark as “throwaway” does not expunge the record.

I find that by his conduct and words said and not said, DS Hudson allowed or encouraged the Local Authority to pursue the finding that MD was Woman X. I reject the explanation he gave for showing all parties the short video during the autumn of 2015 prior to the final hearing that he simply thought that “they should know what … the background to the case was”.

 

  • DS Hudson as officer in the case carried much sway with the Local Authority. In his sharing of information, he did not faithfully observe the ‘Golden Principles’ discussed at [71] above (viz. “Necessary, proportionate, relevant, adequate, accurate, timely and secure”). His less than professional approach regrettably contaminated the family proceedings. He was not, in my judgment, effectively supervised by DI Walker during the months under review. She concedes as much. This was a failing on her part, which I consider contributed to the unchecked mischief in this investigation.
  • I note that Head of Legal Services at West Yorkshire Police has made a referral to the Professional Standards Department of the police in relation to the conduct of DS Hudson; the Professional Standards Department has indicated that it intends to await the outcome of this hearing.
  • It was Mr. Garthwaite’s clear role as Legal Adviser to the force to take responsibility for the force’s compliance with the disclosure orders, to be proactive over the disclosure of material more generally, and to have a hand in (or oversight over) the preparation of DS Hudson’s witness statement. My impression was that he was rather detached from these processes, dipping in when unavoidably required to do so, and otherwise placing reliance and responsibility, to an unwarranted extent, on the actions and judgment of the investigating officer. His e-mail to DS Hudson of 21 July (see [29] above), shows a lack of discipline in communication; regrettably, the use of the vernacular (“pin a case”) may well have given a false impression to the officer about the intentions, the judgment and indeed the integrity, of the Local Authority in the prosecution of its case. His lack of appreciation of the significance of the second (longer) video (which would have been apparent on minimal enquiry) contributed to the failings of his department, and of the investigation.

 

 

 

Findings in relation to counsel instructed by the Local Authority

Findings: Intervener:

 

  • There is no doubt that the Local Authority legal team was under joint and several duties to observe essential principles of fairness, and comply with orders of the court; each owed a duty to the court in the administration of justice. Each had a duty not to mislead the court, knowingly or recklessly, and to provide a competent standard of work. In that regard, what I have said about the Local Authority team above in some respects applies to Mr. Shiels.
  • Mr Shiels, an experienced family practitioner, was instructed as counsel on 16 March 2015, receiving his instructions from time to time from a solicitor whom he regarded as “very able and experienced” and with whom he described enjoying a “good working relationship”. There was, apparently, no formal brief or instructions as such; Mr Shiels received his instructions relatively informally through e-mails and telephone conversations. He attended altogether seven directions hearings in the case prior to the final hearing listed in November 2015.
  • There are clear duties imposed on counsel to observe a duty to the court in the administration of justice, to act with honesty and integrity, and not to behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the individual barrister and/or in the profession (see the Bar Standards Board Handbook, Core Duties).
  • I have, in reviewing Mr. Shiels’ role, as I have with others, endeavoured not to apply too exacting a standard by viewing the conduct through the lens of hindsight. Mr. Shiels’ approach to the case he was instructed to present, reflected in his advice to his instructing solicitor, appears to me to have been more bullish than it was cautious; that is not a criticism as such, nor a mark of professional irregularity. He was of course evaluating the case in the context (to which I have alluded above) of serious criminal offending within the family home; I consider that this backdrop may have influenced (perhaps to a disproportionate extent) his intention to seek serious findings against the mother which on the evidence were, objectively viewed, likely to be beyond his reach. Central to Mr. Shiels’ advice was that the LGC Forensics report may be wrong, and that there was much extraneous evidence (including the superimposition montage) which could knit together to establish a finding that MD was Woman X and that GD was Girl Y on the preponderance of probabilities. While Mr. Shiels was entitled to the view that the expert evidence may indeed be wrong, and that it was in any event only part of the forensic picture, I discerned limited if any evidence on the papers before me that he had properly thought through how this might be presented to the court. I say so for the following reasons:

 

i) There is no indication in what I have seen that he conducted any detailed evaluation of the strength of the expert evidence of LGC Forensics; the report contained much technical and specialist information and assessment, even if ultimately based on a subjective view of the material; Mr. Shiels had no equivalent expert evidence to rebut it; I remind myself of his e-mail to Ms McMullan on 23 July (see [31] above): “to me, it just looks like mother and [GD]. I think the original instinct of the police that they were 90% sure is correct.”

ii) It seems that he had not appreciated the limitations of the superimposition montage; he described this montage as revealing a “remarkable match” in his opening note, yet had not taken the precaution of sending the montage to LGC Forensics and specifically to the expert for her comment. He has no expertise, or knowledge or skill in the area of facial mapping and I apprehend from his cross-examination of the expert at the hearing before HHJ Anderson, that he had limited understanding of the techniques used in compiling such a video (Ms Pestell describes a range of applicable tests including ‘the flicker test’, the ‘half-image’ approach, the ‘transparency overlay’). Ms Pestell was clear that the video superimposition montage compiled here was not just one which would be unsafe to place before a jury, it was in fact potentially misleading. (see [58] above);

iii) Mr. Shiels wrongly described to HHJ Anderson (and may well therefore have treated) the superimposition montage as expert evidence; it was not;

and

iv) It was at least questionable whether the other matters which he wished to bring onto the ‘wide canvas’ were truly probative of the principal contention that MD was Woman X (see [82]).

His e-mail to Ms McMullan on the 23 July (“to me, it just looks like mother and [GD]”: see (i) above, and [31]) does not, as I say, reveal any analysis or reasoning. Professional “instinct” is useful, but it is not a fool-proof or objective measure of evidential reliability. Mr. Shiels’ ready (and I may add appropriate) acknowledgement of the strength of the expert opinion once the author of the report (Ms Pestell) had completed her oral evidence before HHJ Anderson served to highlight the insecure basis on which his original view was formed.

 

  • Mr Shiels’s failure to mention in his detailed Opening Note the possible (as he knew it to be) US origin of the video recording, and/or the failure of the police to locate the watch worn by Woman X in the search of the family home, is harder to understand or explain. I am not satisfied that these omissions were deliberate (in the sense that he sought to paint a misleading picture), but I am concerned that he was “focused” (see [38]) rather too firmly on constructing a case against the mother, encouraged perhaps by the police, rather than in presenting a truly balanced account. Mr. Shiels’ failure to mention these facts contributed to the Article 6 breaches conceded by the Local Authority (see Annex A[1](a)/(b)/(h)).
  • I found Mr. Shiels to be a straightforward and honest witness. I do not view his conduct in this case as falling below the standards of a practising barrister. The opinions he formed were, I am satisfied, genuinely held and fashioned by the information he was given. He was unlikely to have been unaffected by DS Hudson’s zeal. It turns out that in a number of respects his judgment turned out to be wrong; but exercise of judgment is after all in the realms of art not science, and it is easy to view decisions in hindsight:

 

“Lawyers are often faced with finely balanced problems. Diametrically opposed views may [be] and not infrequently are taken by barristers and indeed by judges, each of whom has exercised reasonable, and sometimes far more than reasonable, care and competence. The fact that one of them turns out to be wrong certainly does not mean that he has been negligent” Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchell [1980] AC 198 at 231.

Finally, lessons to be learned

  • What follows is not a comprehensive guide to good practice, but some points which require specific attention as lessons to be learned from the experiences of this case:

Collaboration between agencies and inter-agency working:

i) I have set out the duties of joint working at [68-72] above. The courts expect a high level of co-operation and collaboration between the various agencies conducting joint investigations in relation to safeguarding cases; this was a point I recently made in Rotherham MDC v M & others [2016] EWHC 2660 (Fam) at [10] (“These bodies have a collective responsibility to work in partnership in the discharge of their respective duties, to share information conscientiously, and to maintain clear focus throughout their investigations about their common objectives”); there should be an ongoing dialogue in ‘real time’ between the agencies, and these should be properly recorded – (see below);

ii) Informal discussions (including e-mail ‘discussions’) between professionals conducting joint investigations should be avoided; proper records should be kept of discussions had, and information shared, when and how;

iii) E-mail or other written communications between operational professionals (the Officer in the case, and the social worker) should be copied in to, or pass through, lawyers for each of the agencies, so that there is a clear understanding and record of what information is being shared;

iv) Where meetings take place between the representatives of the safeguarding agencies, a written record should be made of the meeting; that written record should ideally be agreed between the participants.

Disclosure issues

v) Where issues arise as to disclosure of material or information between the police and social services, it is incumbent on the parties rigorously and faithfully to apply and comply with the Protocol and Good Practice Model (October 2013); this identifies as one of its principal Aims and Objectives the “timely and consistent disclosure of information and documents from the police, and the CPS, into the Family Justice System” (3.4).

vi) Where orders are made for disclosure affecting the Police, they must be complied with, or application made to have the order varied or set aside. Orders are Orders (per Re W [2013] EWCA Civ 1177, and specifically in this regard §7.4 of the 2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model). It is not for the Police to apply their own judgement as to the relevance or otherwise (in their eyes) of what they have been required to disclose; it is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person or body against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is varied or discharged;

vii) If the Police consider that the material disclosed requires an explanation/clarification (for example, if the Police consider that it may be misunderstood or given a significance that it does not merit) the Police can make this clear, in the first instance, with a letter accompanying the disclosure and, if need be, by providing a written statement to that effect;

viii) Where information or documentation which is relevant to the public law proceedings is provided by the police to a local authority, that material shall be disclosed to the other parties unless the court, on application by either the local authority or the police, has granted permission for non-disclosure (see for instance Re B (Disclosure to Other Parties) [2001] 2 FLR 1017, and Durham County Council v Dunn [2012] EWCA Civ 1654, [2013] LGR 315);

ix) It is recognised that there may be occasions when the Police seek to delay disclosure on the grounds of prejudice to an ongoing criminal investigation, and this may indeed be merited for a limited period of time (see §6.4 of the 2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model). However, should the police wish to withhold material for this purpose, it should raise the matter with the Local Authority and/or the court (see §7.2); if presented to the court, it will be incumbent on the judge to balance the Police’s desire to delay disclosure against fairness to the parties within the care proceedings and the prejudicial effect of delay upon the children.

x) Furthermore, the Police must always be able to justify any claim of prejudice. Reasons should be provided to the Court. ‘Prejudice to the investigation’ is not to be used as a generic objection to disclosure. Any assertion of prejudice must be scrutinised rigorously and must be kept under constant review. It is to be expected that such analysis and review will involving meaningful input from the investigating officer, his/her supervising officer and/or Police Force Legal Services.

xi) If/when any claim to prejudice is withdrawn by the Police or no longer sanctioned by the Court, the Police and Local Authority should disclose to all parties any information which had previously been withheld as directed by court order.

xii) DI Walker advised me that procedures are now in place within West Yorkshire Police to ensure that disclosure to local authorities engaged in care proceedings is overseen by Information Management and that every disclosure is individually itemised, with page numbers, to ensure absolute clarity about the documentation/information provided and the timing of such disclosures. These logs will then be made available for reference by the Courts as and when required. It is important that this standard of record keeping is adhered to.

ABE Interviewing

xiii) ABE interviewing is a skilled exercise, which should only be conducted by trained professionals. It is not acceptable under any circumstances to provide false or misleading information to a child; after all, there is a high expectation that the child will be encouraged to provide accurate information to the interviewers.

Evidence

xiv) Witness statements:

a) A witness statement is the equivalent of the oral evidence which the maker would, if called, give in evidence (PD22A para.6 FPR 2010). It follows that all witnesses who provide written statements should therefore carefully check the contents of those witness statements before they are signed, and should only confirm the truth and accuracy of the same when they have undertaken that careful check. Local authority lawyers should be scrupulous in ensuring that social workers are aware of any editorial changes made to draft statements; the written statements have particular significance at interim hearings given that “the general rule is that evidence at hearings other than the final hearing is to be by witness statement unless the court, any other rule, a practice direction or any other enactment requires otherwise” (rule 22.7 FPR 2010) and in which a “fact which needs to be proved by the evidence of witnesses is to be proved … by their evidence in writing” (rule 22.2 FPR 2010); at a final hearing, of course, “The witness statement of a witness called to give oral evidence … is to stand as the evidence in chief of that witness unless the court directs otherwise” (rule 22.6(2) FPR 2010);

b) Where a statement of evidence is sought by a Local Authority from a police officer involved in a parallel investigation, such a request should be in the first instance to the District Safeguarding Inspector, and it should be made in writing. If contentious issues arise, then Legal Services of the Police should be involved. It should be clear in any request, and understood as a matter of common practice, that any statement of evidence must provide balanced and accurate information and not mislead by matters either included or omitted; any statement should include all matters which in the view of the District Safeguarding Inspector (and/or Legal Services, if involved) will assist the Family Court in reaching decisions in the best interests of a child, whether that is helpful or adverse to the particular case being advanced by the Local Authority; the statement should be prepared by the Local Authority solicitor. The current policy of the West Yorkshire Police provides for the officer to be interviewed by a Local Authority representative (I would propose that this be a lawyer) in the presence of an Inspector (or higher ranking officer). This makes good sense. It appears that DS Hudson was unaware of the policy at the time he prepared his statement; I understand that DI Walker has referred the matter to the Safeguarding Central Governance Unit in order that all officers involved in safeguarding work can be reminded of its contents;

xv) Different rules, procedures and expectations arise in the instruction of experts in criminal and family proceedings; there are material differences between Part 25 (and PD25) of the FPR 2010 and Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. Where an expert has been instructed in the criminal process on whose evidence the Local Authority wishes to rely, the Local Authority should take steps to ensure that the evidence conforms to the requirements of Part 25 and the associated Practice Direction 25B. Any further approach to the expert should conform to the requirements of Part 25;

xvi) The procedure for submitting questions to experts should be used promptly and in accordance with Rule 25.10 FPR 2010.

Repeat medical examination

xvii) GD was subjected to two medical examinations within a few days of each other in March 2015; the first was an intimate medical examination. The repetition of investigation of this kind is highly regrettable, and I suggest was wholly avoidable. The Local Authority social work team manager explains that the police medical was undertaken by a police forensics surgeon “who would not have been able to undertake a LAC medical. The LAC medical was undertaken by LAC nurses”. This still does not explain why the exercise could not have been conducted collaboratively with the sharing of information and findings. I therefore recommend that:

a) There is a duty on the investigating authority to satisfy itself that there is a proper basis for an intimate medical examination – either, for example, a disclosure of abuse by the child, or a direct allegation of abuse which would be clarified by the intrusive examination;

b) The Police and Local Authority should co-ordinate their enquiries so that a child is not subjected to repeated medical examinations (required for different purposes), particularly within a short space of time;

c) By the time of the medical examination, the Local Authority had parental responsibility for the child under an ICO and gave consent. However, the parents (also with parental responsibility) should have been consulted; in the absence of agreement, a court order should have been sought authorising the medical examination;

d) A report of the examination should be made available to those with parental responsibility, and, where relevant, the court.

These observations coincide with the clear guidance offered in the ACPO Guidance at section 4.4, the College of Policing: Major Investigation and Public Protection; Child Abuse; Further Investigation (first published 21.01.14; last modified 16.11.15), section 3; and the ABE Guidance at para 2.41.