Looks like I picked a bad day to give up not being a veracity assessor

Posted on February 10, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

Wigan BC v M (veracity assessments) 2015 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/8.html

 

Veracity assessments, if you don’t know, is where you have an expert, usually a psychologist, to look at the video interviews of a child’s allegations of abuse and to advise the Court as to the features of that interview that indicate whether reliance can be placed on them.  They went through a brief spell of being popular, and then became unpopular – largely because they go to the ultimate decision of the Judge.  The Judge’s function is to decide who is telling the truth and who is lying, and thus on some level it is a bit of a cop-out to ask an expert to give them the answer.

[There is quite a lot of good research about human beings ability to assess whether people are lying, and we really are quite bad at it. The one I have in mind was specifically about whether a six year old on a video is telling the truth about whether or not they touched a particular toy – and most people who had some ‘professional’ stake in deciding whether or not people are liars did worse than the group of students who did the same exercise as a control group. In fact, people generally do reasonably well when estimating that a statement is true, and are actually slightly worse than chance when estimating that a statement is a lie.  The ‘signs’ that most of us think will be present in a liar actually correlate very badly with actual lying

In a minority of studies, accuracy in detecting lies was computed separately from accuracy in detecting truth. Where this did occur, results show a truth-bias, that is, judges are more likely to consider that messages are truthful than deceptive and, as a result, truthful messages are identified with relatively high accuracy (67%) and deceptive messages with relatively low accuracy (44%). In fact, 44% is below the level of chance, and peoplewould be more accurate at detecting lies if they simply guessed.  http://eprints.port.ac.uk/23/1/SAMJAP.pdf  “Detecting true lies”  Portsmouth University study ]

This is the first veracity assessment case I’ve seen in a few years, and certainly the first one since the test for an expert became ‘necessary to resolve the proceedings justly’

To be fair to the expert in the case, he did exactly what was asked of him and pretty much concluded that there wasn’t a need for a specific veracity assessment  “I have seen nothing to suggest that what these children say requires interpretations by an expert, beyond the accommodation of the factors identified in this report. I hope that I have set out the significant factors and possibilities in this case in such a way that weight can be placed on relevant factors, including any new information that emerges.”

 

In the end, nobody relied on the report, and the Judge at final hearing, Jackson J, indicated that the parties had been premature in seeking such an assessment.  The child in question was a capable witness who could have been called and had questions put to them, and that was a much better way of getting to the truth than having an expert look at things.

The Judge expressed doubts about whether a veracity assessment could meet the current test for expert reports – it might be informative, or useful, but it could hardly be necessary.

Veracity assessments / validation exercises

  1. Having received short submissions from the parties and having consulted the current experience of colleagues, I believe that three principles can be identified:

    1) As a matter of law, there is no bar on the admission of expert evidence about whether evidence is or is not likely to be true. That was the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Re M and R (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 2 FLR 195, interpreting Section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972. It held that expert evidence dealing with issues, including the ultimate issue, was admissible, subject to the overriding requirement of relevance, which, together with questions of weight, was a matter for the judge. At page 210, Butler-Sloss LJ said: “The modern view is to regulate such matters by way of weight, rather than admissibility. But when the judge is of the opinion that the witness’s expertise is still required to assist him to answer the ultimate questions (including, where appropriate, credibility) then the judge can safely and gratefully rely on such evidence, while never losing sight of the fact that the final decision is for him.”2) The Court of Appeal left open the question of whether and to what extent the court had a power to exclude evidence that was admissible and potentially relevant. That question has now been answered by FPR 2010 Rule 25.4 which dictates that expert evidence can only be adduced if it is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings. The fact that expert evidence is admissible and might be relevant or even helpful in a general way is not enough.

    3) In my view, cases in which it will be necessary to seek expert evidence of this sort will nowadays be rare. While the decision must rest on the facts of the individual case, judicial awareness of these issues has greatly increased, from the Cleveland Inquiry in 1987 to the most recent iteration of the principles of Achieving Best Evidence in 2011. In the two decades since Re M and R (above), understanding has naturally moved on. The process continues to evolve, with the final report of the Children and Vulnerable Witnesses Working Group set up in 2014 by the President of the Family Division expected shortly. The overall result is that judges have been trained in and are expected to be familiar with the assessment of evidence of this kind. The court is only likely to be persuaded that it needs expert advice if it concludes that its ability to interpret the evidence might otherwise be inadequate.

  2. I note that in D v B & Others [2006] EWHC 2987 (Fam), Mr Stephen (now HHJ) Wildblood QC said that “Personally I find veracity evidence of assistance in many cases in this field of exceptional difficulty.” In that case, matters had gone awry after the veracity expert went far beyond her proper remit and then changed her opinion after leaving the witness box. It might be seen as an extreme illustration of the potential pitfalls of admitting evidence of this kind.
  3. I also note the observations of Baker J in A London Borough Council v K [2009] EWHC 850 (Fam):

    “… this case has, to my mind, demonstrated that veracity or validity assessments have a limited role to play in family proceedings. They are, so far as I am aware, unused in criminal proceedings in this country, and I see strong arguments for imposing restrictions on their use in family cases as well. … there is a danger that some courts, faced with these difficult decisions, will subconsciously defer to the apparent expert. That danger has been recognised in a number of cases in which the courts have emphasised the discrete roles of the expert and the court. In the case of the veracity expert, the danger is particularly acute. The ultimate judge of veracity, i.e. where the truth lies, is the judge and the judge alone. He cannot delegate that decision to any expert. I acknowledge that a child psychiatrist… may be able to point out some features of a child’s account that add or detract from authenticity… But, in my experience, many of these features should be obvious to judges in any event. No expert, however experienced and however well briefed about the case, will be in a position to say where the truth lies. Only the judge sees and hears all the evidence.”

  4. I entirely agree with that statement of principle. I acknowledge that judges, however experienced, benefit from the knowledge that experts bring, but that knowledge can be absorbed through judicial training and awareness of the well-known protocols of good practice; it does not have to be imparted case by case with the attendant expense that is bound to arise.
  5. In the present case, the parties now accept that the children’s evidence should have been studied before the question of a ‘veracity’ or ‘validation’ assessment was considered, and that if that course had been taken, it is unlikely that the application would have been made, let alone granted. I agree. In the event, the parties did not refer to the resulting report during the fact-finding hearing, nor did I do so when determining the veracity of the children’s allegations.

 

If your assessment of my veracity when I claimed in the title to be a veracity assessor was that I was lying, then congratulations, you were right. You might want to consider becoming a veracity assessor. Or you might not, given that you’re not going to get any instructions.

 

[I can see some scope for a veracity assessment where there is something about the child’s  background which makes them give their responses in a way that would be consistent with them being a liar when compared with an average person from England, but is more about their culture or disability, but I think that’s more about an assessment of child’s presentation or functioning than about veracity per se]

 

NB, a voracity assessment might be a very different thing, and there might still be a place for those…

3 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Is the Child Protection system fit for purpose – a conference on 1st June

Posted on February 6, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

This conference has been set up by members of the Transparency Project   http://transparencyproject.org.uk/  of which I am a tiny part  (a cog who is not pulling his weight at the moment)

 

You may know Lucy Reed from Pink Tape http://www.pinktape.co.uk , or Sarah Philimore from Child Protection Resource http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/ who are the driving force behind this conference. They are the Mary Berry / Paul Hollywood combo – not necessarily in that order.  Many of you may also know Jerry Lonsdale,  who is like the James Bond of the MacKenzie Friend world. And there are many other cool people involved – I’m particularly looking forward to hearing from Sir Mark Hedley and  Kristy Seddon (who is a remarkably impressive care leaver)

So this conference is open to anyone – lawyers, Judges, journalists, social workers, guardians, experts and most importantly real people.

It is going to be like the Glastonbury of family justice. As such, for the small bit I am doing, I will be writing in a blue counsel’s notebook with it behind my back, then with my pen in my teeth and finally setting fire to the notebook.

 

Policing Parents? Protecting Children? Promoting Adoption?

Do we get the child protection system we deserve

The Transparency Project is pleased to announce a multi-discliplinary conference, on 1st June 2015, which will discuss the different views and perspectives from experts, lawyers, social workers, parents and care leavers in an attempt to re-position the current unhealthily polarised debate around the child protection system.

We will be joined by Dr Lauren Devine of UWE who is currently undertaking research into the evidence base for our current system and by Brigid Featherstone, co-author of ‘Re Imagining Child Protection’.

The conference will take place at the NCVO facilities, near Kings Cross in London

Register for tickets – until Feb 28th 2015.

To register for tickets, please email sarah.phillimore@stjohnschambers.co.uk.

Please let us know which afternoon workshop you would like to attend and if you want a vegetarian meal option.

We want to keep costs low but need to charge to cover costs of venue hire and catering. Lunch and refreshments will be available on the day.

Professionals 5 + years PQE £100/Professionals 0-5 years PQE £50 – discount of 20% if 3 or more members of the same organisation book together.

Waged £30

Unwaged £5

We will be seeking accreditation for CPD points for both the Bar and solicitors.

Topics for afternoon discussion

Suggestions are coming in for the issues most likely to require debate/discussion. Please feel free to contact us to add more.

  • Section 20 agreements – the drift and delay problems. Are there adequate mechanisms in place for review of these? What’s the IRO doing?
  • The anti-authority parent – does disagreeing with or failing to co-operate with a social worker equate to being a ‘bad parent’? What can be done to improve relationships between parents and social workers? These issues are highlighted in the recent Hertfordshire case and discussions over at suesspicious minds.
  • Risk of future emotional harm – Re B [2013] is this an acceptable basis for removing children for adoption?
  • Perception of experts as independent – what should happen if experts in a case are on a ‘paid retainer’ with a LA? also an issue raised in the Hertfordshire case above.
  • Problems with ‘working together’ – example of recent disjunction between family and housing law discussed by Nearly Legal. How do we make sure family courts have the best information about issues they may not be familiar with nor fully understand?
  • Opening up the family courts – the impact on children. Is it likely to be a serious as some fear? What lessons can we learn from other jurisdictions?
  • Impact on care proceedings of the rise of litigants in person – what can be done to improve position for people who won’t get legal aid? see discussions by John Bolch on Marilyn Stowe’s blog.
  • Funding for therapeutic intervention- what options should or could be available for parents who are advised they need lengthy therapy/counselling?
  • How is the UK system viewed in Europe? – note the recent report ‘Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States’, in particular para 74 which criticises the refusal of the UK system to reverse adoption orders as a ‘misunderstanding’ of what is in the best interests of a child.

Timetable

9.15-9.45 Registration
9.45 -10.00 Introduction and welcome Sir Mark Hedley
10.00-10.30 Evaluation of the Evidence Base for current practice Dr Lauren Devine UWE
10.30-11.00 Re-Imagining Child Protection Brigid Featherstone
11.00-11.30 Coffee break
11.30-12.00 Expert reports and assessments; new directions for 2015. Lisa Wolfe and colleagues
12.00-12.30 Care leavers’ perspectives Kirsty Seddon
12.30-1.15 Parents’ perspectives on the system Introduction by Jerry Londsdale .
1.15-2.00 Lunch Invitations to complete a ‘next steps’ questionnaire online.
2.00 – 3.15 Parallel discussion groups/workshops See below
2.45-3.15 refreshments and informal discussions Post-it note ‘instant’ feedback wall
3.15-4.15 Top table panel lead Q&A discussion Top table of morning’s plenary speakers
4.15 – 4.30 Closing summary, distil the day and key outcomes – call to action? Sarah Phillimore
PM parallel discussion groups/workshops from 2pm to 3.15pm

A. Intervention versus interference: To what extent should we safeguard? Northumbria University.
B. Family Law Toolkit: how language influences outcomes, achieving best evidence. Update on case law when adoption is ‘necessary’; advice on appeal, Legal aid and exceptional funding, ‘hidden LiPs’ and issues of transparency Alice Twaite, Sarah Phillimore, Lucy Reed and Dr Kate Harrington
C. Therapeutic interventions and community support Angela Markham, Jane Auld, National Parenting Initiative, Families In Care
D. Is good enough, good enough? – expectations around parents with learning disabilities, what kind of support needed? Beth Tarleton and Nadine Tilbury, University of Bristol

15 Comments

Posted in adoption, case law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

forced sterilisation

Posted on February 5, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

I normally canter through a judgment, picking out the salient bits, but I think this one really needs to be read in full to appreciate it. It would not be fair for me to look at individual passages.

This is a follow-up to this piece

Barbecue tongs and police being given power to force entry to a home

 

In which Cobb J, sitting in the Court of Protection, gave a ruling that a caesarean section was in a woman’s best interests and even that the police could force entry. It was a very unusual case.

This follow up is the same Judge, in the same Court, considering whether the woman, who lacked capacity to make decisions for herself, should be sterilised without her consent. And again whether there could be powers to forcibly enter her home, remove her and take her to hospital.  The Court do decide that these things are in her best interests.

There’s no getting away from this, the fact that a Court even have these powers makes anyone feel uncomfortable.  Critics of the system have the right to say that this feels wholly and utterly wrong, no matter how carefully it is explored.  It does end up smacking of eugenics, and the nasty side of eugenics at that. Even thinking for a minute about how terrifying it must be for this woman when the police knock down her door and she is taken to hospital for surgery she doesn’t want and doesn’t understand makes your flesh crawl.

My personal take is that I think Cobb J gives a very careful and thoughtful judgment and tries to balance the competing factors.  Parliament have given the Court of Protection this authority to make such decisions, and if they have to be made, doing it in the way Cobb J has done is the best way to do it. I think he is also right to set out that this is a truly exceptional case, with truly exceptional facts – all efforts to engage and develop the woman’s understanding about the health risks to her of further pregnancies were unsuccessful, and the health risks are life-threatening.  But we have sadly seen that unique and exceptional cases do sometimes end up being used in ones that are slightly less so, and on and on until authorities bear little resemblance to the original case.

 

The Mental Health Trust and DD 2015  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/4.html

 

Even if you end up disagreeing with Cobb J’s decision (and I think you’re perfectly entitled to – this is one of those really moral and ethical arguments) please do him the courtesy of reading the judgment first. It must be a thankless job having to make decisions like this.

17 Comments

Posted in case law, court of protection and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Justice Swiss style

Posted on February 5, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

[Although this is ham-fisted satire, all of the quotations from the Parliament Public Accounts Committee report on legal aid reforms are actually true. They really did say this stuff]

 

The Lord Chancellor today, whilst standing in front of one of the four surviving copies of Magna Carta and drawing on it with a thick black crayon, announced the latest reforms to the English justice system.

 

 

“Having been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for our current reforms, it has become clear to me that I have been too timid, and the time has come to introduce the Swiss model of justice”

 

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/legal-aid-reforms-not-based-on-evidence-claims-report

 

Gems in the Public Accounts Committee critique of the last set of reforms include :-

 

‘Almost two years after the reforms, the Ministry is still playing catch up: it does not know if those still eligible are able to access legal aid; and it does not understand the link between the price it pays for legal aid and the quality of advice being given. Perhaps most worryingly of all, it does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector. It therefore does not know whether the projected £300 million spending reduction in its own budget is outweighed by additional costs elsewhere. The Department therefore does not know whether the savings in the civil legal aid budget represent value for money.’

 

And

 

The Ministry admits that it still has little understanding of why people go to court and how and why people access legal aid.

 

And

 

Contrary to its assurances to Parliament, the Ministry does not know whether people who are eligible for legal aid are able to get it.

 

 

And

 

“In short, there is not a lot the Ministry does know.”

 

 

So, what exactly is the Swiss model that the Lord Chancellor plans to roll out? Here are his words in his speech, which was sent out with his annotations in italics.

 

 

 

“People have said to me that my reforms have rolled back the clock to Victorian times, that these are Nineteenth Century policies. To which I say – that’s a start. But we can do more. Let’s go right back to the Fourteenth Century.

 

The Swiss people are known for their watch-making, ski-resorts, banking and their fine chocolate – any product the Swiss make is intricate, rich with quality and with precise smooth workings. [Note – stay away from any reference to cheese, in case people suggest the policy is ‘full of holes’]

 

This sort of quality is exactly what I intend to bring to the English justice system when I borrow from the Swiss system. Fourteenth Century style.

 

“Let’s get medieval on their ass”   [Note – has Tarantino got back to us with clearance for that quote yet? If not, use air quote fingers when saying it]

 

Why, do you know that at the moment, the amount that we spend on justice every year would be enough to pay for every single illegal immigrant to live in Disneyland Paris for ten years and that our fat-cat legal aid lawyers earn more in a week than Pablo Picasso earned in his entire lifetime. The pensions for many of these snout-in-the-trough lawyers mean that in practice, they are able to retire before they have even finished taking their A Levels. [Note – do not get lured into providing a source for these ‘statistics’]

 

We can do better, we must do better and we will do better. Let us look to the Swiss and their innovations in law [Note, ignore the Geneva Convention – oh , sorry the Americans have already beaten us to it in ignoring that]

 

From now on, our system of people in wigs talking Latin and Judges ruling against me will be replaced by a smooth as silk Swiss model.

 

Any person accused by the state of doing anything naughty will be brought to the nearest town square, and given a crossbow. There, they will attempt to shoot an apple off the head of their eldest child without harming a hair on their head.

 

The same model will apply in all civil claims, probate, divorces, and family claims. Get the kid in, put the apple in place, shoot that off .

If successful, they will win the case.   (unless they have brought a judicial review against me, in which case the apple will be a grape, held between the teeth of their eldest child. And the eldest child will be on a bouncy castle. And the claimant will have to make the shot whilst on a unicycle. After nine pints of snakebite. In the dark. Left-handed. Best out of fifteen. Whilst being tickled. )

 

But, you say to me, won’t introducing this marvellous new Swiss system require a huge capital investment to make the changes? Can we afford to go Swiss?

 

We can’t afford NOT to go Swiss, is what I say.

 

I have anticipated that. By selling off all of our Court buildings and forcibly retiring all Judges and sacking all lawyers apart from the ones I use, the Government can fund apples and crossbow bolts and still achieve a 99% saving on the current budget. And Golden Delicious have already made a lucrative sponsorship offer, with the possibility of partnership with Granny Smith also on the horizon.

 

The Swiss system has the additional benefit in that there are no appeals. If the accused /claimant cannot make the shot, then the case is over. Also the taxpayer will not have to fund the accused’s dependent children during the period of imprisonment.

 

There may be some on-costs of mopping for any trials that don’t end in a not guilty verdict, but we have been approached by a Countess Bathory and some Romanian aristocrats who are interested in bulk purchase of blood, which ought to recoup those costs.

 

I know that looney left-wing do-gooders and vested interests may be saying to themselves “Hey Chris, using first born children as apple-holding instruments of justice and risking their lives just to save costs – that’s cruel”

 

And I say to those do-gooders – you know the old saying “If you can’t do the time, do lots and lots of archery practice before you do the crime”

 

The Swiss model, when we tested and rolled it out in Nottingham, did have two minor flaws. The first was that for childless offenders, it was something of a licence to wreak havoc – but many parts of that city are no longer burning. The second was that Phil the Power Taylor is now a criminal overlord whom the law is powerless to touch, having been acquitted nineteen separate times, and who with his band of merry darters is stealing most of the cost savings that the scheme managed to implement.

 

 

Nonetheless, I am satisfied that a national rollout will solve all of these problems and that the new justice system will no longer be an ‘arrowing experience. [pause for laughs and warm applause. Resist any request by journalists to put an apple on own head]

 

 

 

 

 

[Musical references for this piece would be either Pulling Mussels from the shell by Squeeze “Behind the chalet, my holiday’s complete, and I feel like William Tell, Maid Marian on her tiptoed feet”     or the more frenetic Bug powder dust by Bomb the Bass/Justin Warfield “I always hit the apple when I’m going to shoot / so you can call me William Tell or Agent Cooper to boot” and later on the wonderful   “I got a splinter though, damn, you know man it hurt / I got a Vegemite sandwich from Men at Work”

 

They’re both great, listen to both of them. ]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAHueb8j0wI&index=10&list=PLfFETal_82YoiPI3WtDcTpJZhHskPgRvp     – I recommend LOUD and at home.

 

2 Comments

Posted in family justice modernisation and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

CSI President : Appeal

Posted on February 5, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

I was a bit surprised to see that public money was spent appealing the President’s decision in Re Z Children 2014  which I wrote about here:-

CSI : President

 

The case involved a dad who wouldn’t give a DNA sample, but was in prison for murder. The police had two DNA samples – a DNA sample of the perpetrators blood from the crime scene and the one dad gave that matched it. They were prevented by law in giving the second one to the Court to be used as a paternity test sample. The President decided that they weren’t prevented in law in giving the first sample (which we all know is a match and is dad’s DNA)

I actually thought it was a very clever and intricate solution and one that won’t really cause problems for later cases.

 

Nonetheless, it was appealed, and the Court of Appeal over-ruled the President.

 

Re X and Z Another  http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/34.html

As a result, any samples held by the police ought to only be used for the purposes of criminal law enforcement.

If you were hoping for the President to get a come-uppance, this judgment is not it. The closest they come to a criticism is this bit:-

35. Parliament cannot, when replacing Part V of PACE in 2012, have intended that Part II DNA profiles could be used outside the sphere of criminal law enforcement but that Part V DNA data could not be so used. That would be arbitrary and would make no sense. The court should be very slow to impute to Parliament an intention to legislate so as to produce results which are arbitrary and irrational.

  2. In order to avoid such absurdity and to reflect Parliament’s clear intention in POFA to legislate to remove the incompatibility between English law and the requirements of the Convention, I consider that section 22 should be construed in a way which is consistent with the scheme of Part V. That is to say, section 22 should be construed as meaning that, if the police consider that it is necessary to retain Part II DNA material for criminal law enforcement purposes, they may not use it for any other purpose

 

Given that the Court of Appeal didn’t like the President’s somewhat elastic use of statutory construction (stretch it as far as you can unless it actually snaps) he is perhaps fortunate that all of the parties in Re  X (a child: Surrogacy) 2014 liked his decision (and hence weren’t going to appeal it), because that one for me went beyond snapping point.

 

Conjurers and children’s birthday parties

 

When the President decided that a valid interpretation of THIS piece of statute

“the applicants must apply for the order during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the child is born.”

was

“unless the Court is okay with it”

 

The President doesn’t lose many though – this one and Cheshire West are the only ones that I can remember.  (And I have some sympathy for him on this one, I think it was a child-focussed attempt to resolve a problem)

5 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Moving on up yeah, now I’m out of the darkness

Posted on February 5, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

This is a personal post, not a legal one, so feel free to skip it.  Don’t worry, it is not about to be some Angela’s Ashes style disclosure that will curdle your milk on your breakfast cereal, though it is about my childhood, there are no significant harm issues.

 

When I was eleven, my teacher taught us a lesson about Louis Braille, the man who invented Braille language for the blind. My teacher told us that Louis Braille had gone blind in one eye due to an accident with an awl, doing woodwork when a splinter went into his eye. He then told us that years later, Louis Braille once rubbed his blind eye and then rubbed his good eye with the same hand without thinking about it and it made him blind in both eyes.  [This is not quite true – there was an infection from the wound as a result of the first injury, but it had nothing to do with rubbing it]

This story meant that until about twenty-five, I would only ever touch my left eye with my left hand, and vice versa, to make sure that if I went blind, it would only be in one eye. Thanks teach!

I was very afraid as a child of going blind. I still am, to be honest. I used to test myself by putting a tie around my head so that I couldn’t see, and trying to do basic everyday tasks – getting dressed, brushing my teeth, going downstairs, making breakfast. I knew the dimensions of my home, how many paces from bed to door, how high the doorhandle was, how many steps from my door to the top of the stairs, with my eyes closed.  I even tried to teach myself Braille whilst I still had my sight, figuring that it would be easier.

When I was twelve, we had an eye test at school. And I failed it. I should have seen it coming, in retrospect. I was able to answer any question asked aloud, or written in a textbook, but I never put my hand up for any question written on the blackboard. And when we were out in a car and my dad said “Look! can you see that kestrel?”  I never could, but I just nodded excitedly and pretended. The eye testing people told me that I’d have to wear glasses for a little bit, just to fix my eyes and that wearing glasses would make my eyes better so I wouldn’t need them.  Lies.

When I came out of that eye test and I knew I’d have to wear glasses, I knew that my life was ruined. I didn’t take it well, I was not a brave little soldier. A week later, I stopped being Andrew and became “specky four-eyes”  or “brainbox” or “Professor”.  I hated every moment of wearing those glasses, becoming just a kid who wears glasses and not me any more.

A year later, I went for the repeat eye test, and I had just one goal – getting a pass and not having to wear them anymore. So when I went in the room, I immediately memorized the board. It worked up until they revolved it, at which point my ability to read tiny, tiny writing mysteriously vanished. I would have to do better next year. So I upped my game. I had memorized not only the first board, but all of the later boards that I had seen when they had put lenses on.  Turns out, it is harder to fool optometrists than you think it would be.

Wearing glasses made me very shy.  In case this is feeling a bit self-pitying, I’ll show that I have some perspective. There was a kid in my class who had lost his arm somehow, and if you gave him 50p, he would take his artificial arm off and let you touch his stump. He had a lot more to be sorry about than I did – so I’m just trying to tell you how it felt for me then. I know it wasn’t really that bad.

I’m still shy today, to be honest. A lot more shy than anyone would imagine, and that’s because when I went to college and was surrounded by a peer group of strangers, who didn’t only know me as “specky four eyes”, didn’t know me at all, I had an important revelation. “None of these people know that you’re shy”, I thought, “so you get to pretend that you’re someone who isn’t. Who would you like to be? And just be them”

So I found some really good masks to put on, and eventually, the people I was pretending to be sort of became the people I was.  I was also really lucky to be born into a generation where glasses and being brainy and being interested in smart stuff went from being things that would marginalise you and get you bullied if you mentioned them to suddenly becoming cool. I’ve been waiting about ten years for the old world order to be restored and for people to start picking on geeks again, but it turns out we won.  Thank you Joss Whedon!

Anyway, about three weeks ago, I noticed that I wasn’t able to read magazines properly. I was doing a sort of dance with them, moving them back and forth until I could see the print, then it would go. And then it turned into books. And then I noticed that I was actually reading better without my glasses than with them.  I’m thirty years older now than when I was faking those eye tests, so I wasn’t thinking “My god, I’m finally fixed, I don’t need glasses any more”  – but I was back to thinking those terrible things about having to navigate the world without sight.

It turns out that I just need varifocals. I’m not going blind, I’m just old. Officially old. But it was something of an emotional day, stirring up all those old thoughts, and I just thought for once I would share them.

I was blind, but now I see, as Primal Scream sang.

12 Comments

Posted in stuff that isn't law at all. Bookmark the permalink.

Unfortunate and woeful – Local Authority failings

Posted on February 3, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

This is a High Court case in which the Judge (Keehan J) was very (and rightly) critical of the Local Authority, including criticism that when they were asked for explanations of their conduct prior to and during the proceedings those explanations were not satisfactory and amounted to not much more than attempts to defend the indefensible.

 

Northamptonshire and DS 2014

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/199.html

 

The case ended with a child, DS, being placed with his maternal grandparents in Latvia.

 

It began, as cock-ups so often do, with a section 20 agreement. There were some legitimate concerns that DS would be at risk in the care of his mother and his mother was asked to agree to place him in ‘voluntary’ foster care. This happened when he was 15 days old.

 

The Local Authority did not properly think about care proceedings until five months later, and even worse than that, having decided that care proceedings were the right thing to do, did not then issue them until five months after that.

 

The care proceedings were plagued by delay, most if not all being ascribed to the Local Authority, ending up with a child spending nearly two years in foster care when there were grandparents who were eventually able to care for him.

 

The Guardian and mother issued claims for Human Rights damages on behalf of the child, and the LA by the time of the final hearing were accepting that they had violated the child’s human rights in all of these human rights claims:-

 

 

(a) The local authority failed to take any protective action to safeguard the child despite having concerns that he was at risk of suffering significant harm between 15 and 30 January 2013, in breach of his article 6 and 8 rights.

(b) Whilst the child was accommodated pursuant to section 20 CA on 30 January 2013, a decision to initiate proceedings was not made until 23 May 2013 and an application for a care order was not made until 5 November 2013. Over this period of 11 months the child was without access to any independent representation of his welfare interests and had no access to any remedy or recourse and no person was exercising parental responsibility for him, in breach of the child’s article 6, 8 and 13 rights. *

(c) The local authority, by its acts or omissions, caused or contributed to a series of delays in the filing of necessary evidence during the course of the care proceedings and the final evidence filed for hearing in October 2014 was inadequate and incomplete, in breach of the child’s and mother’s article 6 rights.

(d) The delays and general mismanagement of the case by the local authority has been seriously prejudicial to the child’s welfare and the child’s and mother’s ability to enjoy a family life with a member of his extended family prior to November 2014, which may have irredeemable consequences for the child’s future welfare and development. Such failures were in breach of the child’s article 8 rights.

(e) The child and mother were subject to a high turnover of social workers and locum social workers with conduct of his case file leading to a lack of cohesive, comprehensive management and care for a significant period of time and in breach of the child’s and mother’s article 6 rights and prejudicial to their article 8 rights.

(f) The local authority failed to organise contact between the child and his mother in accordance with an explicit order of the court and the advice of the Children’s Guardian for a significant period of time and poor organisation and communication by the local authority led to various sessions of contact being cancelled. Such failures were in breach of the child’s and mother’s article 8 rights.

 

 

*you don’t often hear of article 13 rights, but it was a good call in this case:-

 

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

 

There wasn’t an effective remedy until the LA issued the care proceedings that should have begun in February at worst, but instead started in November.

 

A package amounting to £17,000 was agreed by the Local Authority and approved by the Court.

 

Looking at some of the particular criticisms made by the Court:-

 

 

Inexperience of the worker and delay in issuing

 

 

I cannot begin to understand why an inexperienced social worker who was not familiar with care proceedings was allocated as a social worker for a 15 day old baby. I do not understand why it took until August to provide her with support or why senior managers did not intervene in this case. It is wholly inexcusable for a local authority to take three months to decide to issue care proceedings in respect of a very young baby and then a further five months to issue care proceedings. The fact that the parents are Latvian and that close family members lived abroad, provides no explanation less still an excuse for the extraordinary delay in this case.

 

 

The changes in social worker

 

I appreciate that social services’ departments have difficulties recruiting and retaining social workers but it is deeply worrying that over the course of these proceedings DS has been allocated no less than eight different social workers. It is evident to me that neither the social workers, nor the senior managers at Northampton Children’s Services Department had DS’s welfare best interests at the forefront of their minds. Worse still they did nothing to promote them. Their chaotic approach to this young baby’s care and future life was dismal.

 

 

The section 20 agreement

 

The use of the provisions of s.20 Children Act 1989 to accommodate was, in my judgment, seriously abused by the local authority in this case. I cannot conceive of circumstances where it would be appropriate to use those provisions to remove a very young baby from the care of its mother, save in the most exceptional of circumstances and where the removal is intended to be for a matter of days at most.

 

The accommodation of DS under a s.20 agreement deprived him of the benefit of having an independent children’s guardian to represent and safeguard his interests. Further, it deprived the court of the ability to control the planning for the child and to prevent or reduce unnecessary and avoidable delay in securing a permanent placement for the child at the earliest possible time.

 

 

Whether the s20 ‘consent’ was really meaningful consent

 

On 30 January the local authority concluded that DS was at risk of harm in the care of his mother and secured her agreement to him being placed with foster carers. I question how effective that consent was when it was sought without the mother having the benefit of an interpreter.

 

And overall

 

The catalogue of errors, omissions, delays and serial breaches of court orders in this matter is truly lamentable. They would be serious enough in respect of an older child but they are appalling in respect of a 15 day old baby. Each day, each week and each month in his young life is exceedingly precious. Where so young a child is removed from the care of his mother or father his case must be afforded the highest priority by the local authority.

 

 

 

None of this is good. It is, in fact, deeply bad.

 

Critics of the family justice system, and there are many, are entitled to point to a case like this and say that this is what goes on. The parents in this case, and the child in this case, were badly let down by professionals and there were systemic failures to put things right.

 

It is only a small crumb of comfort that this was a case in which the Judge dealing with it was prepared to be tenacious and forensic about those failures, with a view to preventing them happening to other unfortunate families.

 

As the Judge says at the end

 

I trust that the events of the first 23 months of DS’s life will not have a detrimental impact on his future development and his emotional and psychological well being. There is a real risk they will do so.

18 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

From Bratislava to Llangefni

Posted on February 2, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

The President making a costs order against Capita for failure to provide a Slovak interpreter for a final hearing.

In the matter of Capita Translation and Interpreting Ltd 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/5.html

 

You might remember that what used to happen for interpreters is that you would find one, book one, they would turn up and interpret and then you would pay them. That was all far too simple, so the MOJ introduced a helpful layer of complexity and commerciality, by bringing a third party into the process.

Now what happens is you want an interpreter, you ask the Court, the Court ask Capita, Capita find an interpreter, they turn up *(ahem), you ring the Court saying where are they?, the Court say “it’s capita’s fault, not ours”, you try to explain to the client as best you can that nobody has come to interpret, you get shouted at by the Court, you adjourn off and do it all again when this time an interpreter does turn up, you pay Capita, Capita pay the interpreter.

I wrote about the President’s first go at this back in May 2014

All a matter of interpretation

 

When it emerged that Capita don’t employ interpreters, but used freelancers and that they simply didn’t have any control over whether ones they had booked to go to Court actually turned up at that hearing, or chose to do a more lucrative local hearing instead; and moreover that there was a particular systemic problem with Slovak interpreters.

 

The President said at that time:-

Ms Facchini’s statement is dated 14 May 2014. I need not go into the full details. That is a matter for a future occasion. For immediate purposes there are three points demanding notice. The first is that, according to Ms Facchini, the contractual arrangements between Capita and the interpreters it provides do not give Capita the ability to require that any particular interpreter accepts any particular assignment, or even to honour any engagement which the interpreter has accepted. The consequence, apparently, was that in this case the two interpreters who had accepted the assignment (one on 14 and the other on 17 April 2014) later cancelled (on 5 and 1 May 2014 respectively). The second is that it is only at 2pm on the day before the hearing that Capita notifies the court that there is no interpreter assigned. The third is the revelation that on 7 May 2014 Capita had only 29 suitably qualified Slovak language interpreters on its books (only 13 within a 100 miles radius of the Royal Courts of Justice) whereas it was requested to provide 39 such interpreters for court hearings that day. This is on any view a concerning state of affairs. If the consequence is that a hearing such as that before me on 7 May 2014 has to be abandoned then that is an unacceptable state of affairs. It might be thought that something needs to be done.

12 Whether the underlying causes are to be found in the nature of the contract between the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS or whoever and Capita, or in the nature of the contract between Capita and the interpreters it retains, or in the sums paid respectively to Capita and its interpreters, or in an inadequate supply of interpreters (unlikely one might have thought in a language such as Slovak), I do not know. We need to find out.

 

This is the judgment about whether Capita should pay the parties wasted costs – relying in part on Cobb J’s decision that costs could be paid by a third party who is not part of the litigation if the fault lay with them.

The particular problem with Slovak interpreters was touched on again – it being a matter of supply and demand

The wider context is illuminated by Statistics on the use of language services in courts and tribunals: Statistical bulletin, 30 January 2012 to 31 December 2013, published by the Ministry of Justice on 17 April 2014. In Q2 2012, Capita’s overall ‘success rate’ in providing interpreters requested by courts and tribunals was 92.4%. After a dip, coinciding with Capita’s reduction in the mileage rate paid to interpreters, the overall success rate had climbed again to 93.4% in Q4 2013. For civil and family cases the success rate in 2013 was lower, at 89.8%. What is striking, however, is the markedly lower success rate in relation to the provision of Slovak interpreters, only 77.7% in 2013, which was “reflected in the complaint rate which is amongst the highest of all language requests.” Indeed, “Of the 10 languages with most complaints in 2013, the language with the highest complaint rate was Slovak (8.7%). The majority of Slovak complaints came from tribunals where there was a 23.6 complaint rate.” In relation to the overall complaint rate, “In 2013, most complaints were in the South East (2,400) – 35.8% of all complaints reported. The South East had a relatively high complaint rate of 5.7%, well above the 4.1% UK average.”[1]

The President ordered that Capita pay the wasted costs, but did not go as far as many of us would hope in saying that this should become commonplace in cases where hearings don’t go ahead because of a cock-up with interpreters

There was a certain amount of discussion before me as to whether Capita’s obligation to provide an interpreter is dependent upon it having been given reasonable notice and, if it is, as to what amounts to reasonable notice. The point does not in fact arise for decision because on any basis Capita was given more than adequate notice of the need for interpreters at the hearing on 7 May 2014. I propose to say only this. It is clear from the analysis in the ALS case that Capita is required to provide interpreters not merely 24 hours a day but also at what may be very short notice. Notice will in the nature of things often be a matter of hours at most rather than days. But there may come a point at which, given the circumstances of the particular assignment, the notice given is so short as to be meaningless. Suppose, for example, that at 10.00am the court at Llangefni (on the Isle of Anglesey) were to inform Capita that it needs an interpreter in Slovak for a hearing starting at 10.30. Would Capita be in breach of its obligations? This is a matter to be decided another day when the point arises. But without, I emphasise, deciding the point one way or the other, I have, as indicated (see paragraph 39 above), given Capita the benefit of the doubt in relation to the 37 minutes’ notice it was given of the hearing on 9 August 2012.

 

It is refreshing to see a Judge sitting in London who in stretching for a metaphor about somewhere being far away, casts his imagination further than Watford or Preston, and goes for somewhere off the coast of Wales. Hello people of Llangefni. You don’t get much love in law reports, so this is your moment.

The President rather nicely points out that a target of 98% is not really that useful – in every case where you need an interpreter, you actually need one – you don’t need them 98% of the time.

There have been serial failures by Capita in this case against a background of wider systemic problems. Applying the standard identified by Morritt LJ in the Globe case and Cobb J in B v B, and having regard to the principles of general application to be drawn from the ALS case, it is my judgment just in all the circumstances to make the order Mr Howard seeks. In this case, just as in B v B, the failures (here on the part of Capita, there on the part of the local authority) were, to adopt Cobb J’s words, not minor but extensive, and, at two different stages of the litigation, they had a profound effect on the conduct of the proceedings.

  2. I emphasise that I have reached this decision on the facts of this particular case. I am not to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide an interpreter. The ALS case is clear authority against any such proposition. Nor am I to be understood as suggesting that Capita will be liable for each and every failure to provide a Slovak interpreter, lamentable though its failures to provide such interpreters were in this particular case and, seemingly, more generally. Everything will depend upon the precise circumstances of the particular case.
  3. Nor should it be assumed that a similar liability will extend to other private-sector contractors whose failures can impact adversely upon the court sitting-day, for example, the companies responsible for producing prisoners at court or the companies responsible for the maintenance of court buildings. Much may turn on the precise term of the agreements under which they operate, of which I know nothing and which may, for all I know, be very significantly and materially different from Capita’s agreement with the Secretary of State.

 

Given the President’s attempt to build bridges between Wales and the Slovak people, I’ll add my own

poď by sem. Nebudem klamať, že je to poriadok rozsudok

 

 

[Come over by here, I won’t lie to you, that’s a tidy judgment…]

8 Comments

Posted in case law, costs and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Defying the Court of Protection – is there such a thing as committal in Court of Protection?

Posted on February 2, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

 

MSAM v MMAM 2015 is a Court of Protection case tackling something for the first time.

 

In this case

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/3.html

 

Mrs MMAM is 76. Her health deteriorated and she was living in parlous conditions at home. Following assessments, it was felt that she lacked capacity to make decisions for herself and was unable to remain in her own home.

 

The Court of Protection considered the case and made the following declarations on 20th February 2014 :-

 

“It is hereby declared pursuant to S.48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that: it is lawful and in the First Respondents best interest to continue to reside and receive care at X residential home and any deprivation of her liberty occasioned by residing there is approved by the Court pursuant to S.4 A16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”

 

 

On 1st April 2014, MMAM’s grandson attended the X residential home and removed her from that home, the manager of the home believing that he had no legal authority to prevent this.

 

 

It is important to note that she was then removed to Saudi Arabia, and also important to note that MMAM’s son (MSAM) had been a party to the Court of Protection proceedings and had not been challenging the plan at that hearing.

 

 

On the 1st April 2014 Mrs MMAM left the jurisdiction. I have been told she is currently residing in Saudi Arabia. On the morning 1st April the Second Respondent (Grandson) took Mrs MMAM from the X road residential home. He did so with the compliance of the manager who believed that he had no legal basis to prevent such a course. He was apparently told that Mrs MMAM was going with her grandson to the Saudi Arabian Embassy. She was taken there and her travel documents were provided which appeared to have enabled her to be booked on the very next available flight from London to Jeddah which left that evening. The grandson purports to outline the events of that day in his statement dated the 13th May. I say without hesitation that I found his account to be self serving and disingenuous. The description of what is said to be Mrs MMAM’s behaviour on that day bears absolutely no relationship to anything I have read about her in any other document. At paragraph 8 the grandson states

 

“We took a taxi to the Embassy arriving just before 10am, my grandmother, without entering security, had found the way to the meeting ahead of me. Once I had introduced her, I left her to discuss her affairs as I had understood from my father I should not participate in discussing the case with officials and her in any detail. A few hours went by, I was summoned and asked to accompany my grandmother to a place where food was given to her and then we were taken to a rest facility. Little later someone from the embassy came to take her and I was told to return home and that they would contact me as required.”

If that was indeed in any way accurate and Mrs MMAM had been left on her own at the Embassy, in my view, she would have been, on the basis of everything I have read, confused and probably rather frightened. The statement is entirely unconvincing. In the paragraphs that follow any aspiration to credibility is lost, if not abandoned.

 

“That night the manager from X road called me regarding my grandmother, I said she must still be with the embassy staff if she wasn’t back at X road. Someone from the Local Authority also contacted me, he asked me whether I felt she was safe or not? I told them I believe she was and would contact them if I heard anything. I then received a call to let me know that my grandmother was safe, ‘not to worry’ and I relayed the message to staff…. the next day I heard news that my grandmother was in Saudi Arabia.”

Later he states:

 

“The manner and speed of her repatriation has taken me by surprise. I do not want to speculate on the matter but I’m aware the situation has pleased my grandmother and family. Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, the time constrained medical condition made the embassy action inevitable; though I do not believe any of the people aware of my grandmother’s appointment with the embassy expected it and I certainly did not.

‘I would like to thank the court for its measured consideration and on behalf of both myself and my grandmother I want to express our gratitude to Judge Batton, the staff of X Road and the doctors. I am eternally grateful to found, in all of them, definitely the living personification of the oath undertaken by each of them.”

The picture presented is a complete fabrication. This old, sick, largely incapacitous lady further burdened by an ‘abnormal belief system’ would simply not have been able to function effectively or autonomously in the way the grandson asserts. It is clear from the above passages that the grandson was acting entirely on his father’s instructions. That is the dynamic of their relationship which I have observed for myself in the courtroom at previous hearings. The reference to “the time constrained medical condition” sadly relates to the fact that Mrs MMAM is suffering from metastasised bowel cancer. The statement requires recasting in reality. Mr MASM and his son have plainly colluded to defeat the declaration made by this court. Mr MASM has done so notwithstanding that he acquiesced to the declaration made and drafted in the terms that it was. He was the applicant in this litigation. In my judgement he has acted with cynical disregard to the objectives of this process and, in the light of the declarations drawn, it must follow that his actions are entirely inconsistent with the best interests of this vulnerable and incapacitous woman, who is of course his own mother. The reasons for this planned deception are not immediately clear, but I draw from this history and from the actions of these two men that their motivation is likely family’s financial self-interest. It seems to me that if Mr MASM had genuinely believed that his mother’s interest did not lie in her remaining in the residential unit for the reasons Dr Arnold said then he had every opportunity to put those conclusions to the assay by cross examination. He chose not to do so despite being represented by counsel.

 

 

The legal question then arose :-

 

  1. Was this action a breach of the Court of Protection’s declaration and authorisation of Deprivation of Liberty?
  2. And if so, what are the sanctions for such a breach

 

 

Within the law relating to children, these sort of actions have been going on for a long time, and it is settled law that a breach of a Court order can lead to an application for committal for contempt of court, and to imprisonment if the breach can be proved to the criminal standard of proof. But this is new to Court of Protection cases.

 

Though this case raises important issues of law and practice it must be emphasised that conduct of the kind seen here is rare, indeed in my experience it is unprecedented. Many of the litigants who come before the Court of Protection are at a time of acute distress in their lives, as a cursory glance at the case law of this still fledgling court will show. The issues could not be more challenging, not infrequently they quite literally involve decisions relating to life and death. Inevitably, some litigants do not achieve their objectives neither wholly nor in part but they respect the process. More than once I have observed that the importance to a family of being heard in decisions of this magnitude matters almost as much as the outcome itself. Sometimes the medical and ethical issues raised are such that NHS Trusts seek the authorisation of the court to endorse or reject a particular course of action. The court ultimately gives its conclusion by declaration both in relation to lawfulness and best interests. The terms of these declarations often cannot and indeed should not seek to be too prescriptive.

 

Keehan J reviewed the powers of the Court of Protection to enforce its orders (and note the criticisms of the LA for its ‘supine’ response)

 

The Court of Protection’s powers of enforcement are extensive. The Court has in connection with its jurisdiction the same powers, rights and privileges and authority as the High Court (COPR 2007, R89) which means that it may find or commit to prison for contempt, grant injunctions where appropriate, summons witnesses when needed and order the production of evidence. (COPR 2007, part 21 makes further provision RR183-194). The relevant practice directions (PD21A) and “practice guidance notes” deal with Contempt of Court, Applications for enforcement may also be made; the CPR relating to third party debt orders and charging orders are applied as are the remaining rules of the Supreme Court 1965 in relation to enforcement of judgments and orders and writs of execution fieri facias (writs and warrants of control, post April 2014) All this said the Court of Protection jurisdiction is limited to the promotion of ‘the purposes of’ (my emphasis) the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and, it follows, the appropriate order may be, from time to time, to direct the Deputy or some other person to take proceedings of a different kind in another court where the objectives fall outside the remit of the MCA.

 

Finally, of course, the court may direct penal notices to be attached to any order, warning the person of the consequences of disobedience to the order i.e. that it would be a contempt of court punishable by imprisonment and or a fine (or where relevant sequestration of assets). An application for committal of a person for contempt can be made to any judge of the Court of Protection by issuing an Application Notice stating the grounds of the application supported by affidavit in accordance with practice directions. (COPR 2007 makes additional provisions). In addition to this the court may make an order for committal on its own initiative against a person guilty of contempt of court which may include misbehaviour in the face of the court.

 

Initially the Local Authority considered that it had been comprehensively thwarted by Mr MASM’s unilateral actions. In a response which I considered to be supine, they advance no opposition to Mr MASM’s application to withdraw the proceedings. I was roundly critical of that reaction. Mrs MMAM had been rescued from squalor and neglect. I have been shown photographs of her previous living conditions. Her grandson, the man who negotiated what he calls her “repatriation” was living in the same house as his grandmother whilst her circumstances had reduced to the parlous conditions that I have described. In addition, Mrs MMAM lacked capacity in relation to medical, welfare and litigation decisions. Moreover she was in addition gravely ill physically. Local Authority’s simply have to absorb the extent of their responsibilities in these challenging cases. Vulnerable adults must be protected every bit as sedulously as vulnerable children. I emphasise that it is the safeguarding obligation that is similar- I do not suggest that vulnerable adults and children should be regarded as the same. Accordingly, I asked the Local Authority, the Official Solicitor and Mr MASM to reflect on the questions identified in paragraph 13 above.

I

 

 

Rather interestingly, both the LA and the family were submitting to the Court that the Court of Protection’s power in terms of making a declaration of best interests was a narrow one, limited to making a declaration of what was in MMAM’s best interests and not to making a prohibitive order.

 

If the declaration of interests was looked at in that way, the Court had not, and could not, make an order that prohibited the family removing MMAM and thus there was no order that could amount to a contempt of Court or a committal for contempt.

 

The Official Solicitor took a different view (and placed reliance on amongst others, a case called Long Wellesley, involving wardship and an MP removing his daughter from wardship without permission)

 

The Official Solicitor distils from these authorities the following propositions, namely that where:

 

  1. i) an application was issued in the Court of Protection specifically seeking the Court’s permission to remove P from the jurisdiction;

 

  1. ii) the court was seized of the matter;

 

iii) the court declared on an interim basis that it is in P’s best interests to live at a certain address within the jurisdiction;

 

  1. iv) it follows that a party, with knowledge of the application and court’s orders would commit a contempt of court by removing or organising for the removal of P from the jurisdiction without the court’s permission.

 

It is contended that this amounts to a contempt of court, even when no injunctive order has been made. In essence the argument is:

 

  1. i) the principles of wardship and parens patriae should apply to the Court of Protection, given the supervisory and protective nature of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction, and P should be protected as would a ward of court and/or because;

 

  1. ii) such a person would be deliberately treating the declaratory order of the court as unworthy of notice.

 

 

 

So, the question is :- is a declaration of best interests something that if a person knows of it and thwarts it, a contempt of Court? Or is that only the case if the Court has the power to, and decides to, make an order that is prohibitive in nature and clear on the face of the order what a breach would be and what the consequences of breach might be.

 

That is, the difference between an order that says:-

 

It is in MMAM’s best interests to live at 22 Tupperware Court, Ker-Plunk

 

And

 

It is in MMAM’s best interests to live at 22 Tupperware Court, Ker-Plunk and her son and grandson shall not remove her from that property nor instruct others to do so. [and when sent to her son and grandson, the order also says “you must obey this order. If you do not, you may be sent to prison for contempt of court”]

 

You don’t often have cases in family law (or Court of Protection) where the litigation about the Spycatcher book is important, but in this one, it was an important part of the judicial reasoning as to what the status of a declaration of best interests was.

 

[It is a fascinating analysis, but beyond the scope of this piece – if you are interested in the fine detail, the judgment is well worth reading]

 

 

Drawing the strands of the case law, the legal framework and the agreed facts together, the following points emerge:-

 

  1. i) The Court made clear personal welfare decisions on behalf of an incapacitated woman which every party agreed to be in her best interests;

 

  1. ii) Breach of Court Orders even in the absence of a Penal Notice may nonetheless potentially be a contempt where there is a wanton disregard for the court’s decision;

 

iii) Some case law also suggests that in the exercise of the parens patriae any action hampering the objectives of the court is an interference with the administration of justice and therefore a criminal contempt see RE B(JA) (an infant) 1965 CH1112 at P1117:

 

‘any action which tends to hamper the court in carrying out its duty [to protects it’s ward] is an interference with the administration of justice and a criminal contempt’

 

 

If that third point applied to vulnerable adults, then a contempt of court could arise in circumstances where a person just hampered or interfered with the best interests decision, rather than in circumstances of the second point (wanton disregard for the Court’s decision)

 

The Official Solicitor was arguing in relation to that third point that in terms of safeguarding vulnerable adults and safeguarding children, the same principles applied in full. Keehan J was more guarded

 

 

Addressing the Official Solicitor’s argument in relation to actions hampering the exercise of the parens patriae I do not consider that the jurisdiction I am exercising here equates seamlessly with the exercise of the parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction in relation to children. Nor do I consider that Munby J intended to go so far in Re SA (supra). Whilst both jurisdictions require there to be a sedulous protection of the vulnerable, there is a paternalistic quality to wardship which does not easily equate to and is perhaps even inconsistent with the protection of the incapacitous adult, in respect of whom capacity will or may vary from day to day or on issue to issue. There is in addition, the obligation to promote a return to capacity wherever possible. The Court of Protection has a protective and supervisory role but wardship goes much further, it invests the judge with ultimate responsibility. The child becomes the judge’s ward. There is no parallel in the Court of Protection and it would be wrong, in my view, to rely on this now dated and limited case law (identified by Mr McKendrick) to permit this Court to reach for a power which is not specifically provided for in the comprehensive legislative framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

 

The law in relation to children has also moved on from the landscape surveyed by Lord Atkinson in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, particularly since the inception of the Children Act 1989, drafted of course, with ECHR compatibility in mind. Lord Atkinson’s description of a ‘paternal and quasi domestic jurisdiction over the person and property of the wards’ has little resonance for practitioners for whom ‘family life’, protected under Article 8 of the ECHR, is evaluated by analysing competing rights and interests, where the autonomy of the child is also afforded great respect. Unsurprisingly and partly in response to the range of these principles the scope and ambit of wardship has reduced very considerably (Section 100 Children Act 1989 repealed Section 7 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, the route by which the High Court had derived its power to place a ward of court in the care, or under the supervision of a Local Authority). Whilst Mr McKendrick is entirely right to draw this line of authority to my attention, the position in relation to wardship is, to my mind, largely anomalous, predicated as it is on the somewhat artificial premise that the court represents the Sovereign as parens patriae and cannot therefore be resolving contested issues as between the parties in an non adversarial arena (see Arlidge, Eady and Smith on contempt (4 edition) (Para 11-338). Mr McKendrick put much emphasis on the judgment of Munby J in Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity: Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 867, para 84. In particular he referred me to par 84:

 

“As I have said, the court exercises what is, in substance and reality, a jurisdiction in relation to incompetent adults which is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its well-established jurisdiction in relation to children. There is little, if any, practical difference between the types of orders that can be made in exercise of the two jurisdictions.”

It is important to emphasise that Munby J whilst emphasising the similarity of the two jurisdictions ‘for all practical purposes’ also notes the essentially different, indeed unique, nature of the wardship jurisdiction, later in the same paragraph:

 

“The main difference is that the court cannot make an adult a ward of court. So the particular status which wardship automatically confers on a child who is a ward of court – for example, the fact that a ward of court cannot marry or leave the jurisdiction without the consent of the court – has no parallel in the case of the adult jurisdiction. In the absence of express orders, the attributes or incidents of wardship do not attach to an adult.”

 

 

Keehan J decided that ultimately, the third point did not apply to vulnerable adults, and that despite the family’s conduct being entirely inimical to MMAM’s welfare and wellbeing, what was needed for a contempt and a committal remedy in Court of Protection cases was an order drawn in a prohibitive way with a penal notice. Keehan J decided that the Court of Protection had powers under s16 Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make such orders arising from their declaration of best interests

 

 

Ultimately, a declaration of best interests connotes the superlative or extreme quality of welfare options. It by no means follows automatically that an alternative course of action to that determined in the Declaration, is contrary to an individual’s welfare. There may, in simple terms, be a ‘second best’ option. For this reason, such a declaration cannot be of the same complexion as a Court Order. It lacks both the necessary clarity and fails to carry any element of mandatory imperative. I am ultimately not prepared to go as far as Mr McKendrick urges me to and elevate the remit of the Court of Protection, in its welfare decision making, to such a level that anything hampering the court in the exercise of its duty, or perpetrated in wanton defiance of its objectives is capable, without more, of being an interference with the administration of justice and therefore criminal contempt. Such an approach would it seems to me be entirely out of step with the development of our understanding of the importance of proper and fair process where the liberty of the individual is concerned. I would add that this has long been foreshadowed by the recognition that the necessary standard of proof in a application to commit is the criminal standard.

 

 

Moreover, though my order of 20th February 2015 was expressed to have been made pursuant to section 16, it was drafted in declaratory terms. As such, for the reasons I have set out above, it cannot, in my judgement, trigger contempt proceedings. There cannot be ‘defiance’ of a ‘declaration’ nor can there be an ‘enforcement’ of one. A declaration is ultimately no more than a formal, explicit statement or announcement. That said I emphasise that Mr MASM, in fact acted, through the agency of his son, in a way which was cynically contrary to his mother’s best interests. The course he took was not a ‘second best’ option but one entirely inimical to his mother’s welfare, physically, mentally and emotionally. He has frustrated the objectives of the litigation but he is not, as I ultimately find, acting in defiance of an order and therefore is not exposed to contempt proceedings.

 

 

 

As a result, there was no legal power, from the orders that were in placed, to lodge a committal notice or to commit the family to prison for their actions. All that Keehan J could do was to criticise them for their actions and order that they pay the costs of this hearing (which were probably considerable, given the amount of legal research that was needed – once people get into reading Spycatcher and 1831 cases about dubious MPs http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1831/jul/19/privilege-case-of-mr-long-wellesley not to mention the entire law of contempt, wardship and penal notices, the costs do mount up)

 

He also suggested that the LA should probably think very hard about whether it was sensible for the son to remain MMAM’s deputy with powers over her financial affairs.

 

As for more general guidance

 

 

Such guidance as I can give can only be limited:

 

  1. i) Many orders pursuant to Section 16 seem to me to be perfectly capable of being drafted in clear unequivocal and even, where appropriate, prescriptive language. This Section provides for the ‘making of orders’ as well as ‘taking decisions’ in relation to P’s personal welfare, property or affairs. Where the issues are highly specific or indeed capable of being drafted succinctly as an order they should be so, rather than as more nebulous declarations. Where a determination of the court is capable of being expressed with clarity there are many and obvious reasons why it should be so;

 

  1. ii) In cases which require that P, for whatever reason, reside at a particular place the parties and the court should always consider whether to reinforce that order, under Section 16, by a declaration, pursuant to Section 15, clarifying that it will be unlawful to remove P or to permit or facilitate removal other than by order of the court;

 

iii) In cases where the evidence suggests there may be potential for a party to disobey the order or frustrate the plans for P approved by the court as in his best interest, the Official Solicitor or Local Authority should consider inviting the court to seek undertakings from the relevant party. If there is a refusal to give undertakings then orders may be appropriate;

 

  1. iv) Where a potential breach is identified the Local Authority and/or the Official Solicitor should regard it as professional duty to bring the matter to the immediate attention to the court. This obligation is a facet of the requirement to act sedulously in the protection of the vulnerable;

 

  1. v) Thought must always be given to the objectives and proportionality of any committal proceedings see Re Whiting (supra).

3 Comments

Posted in case law, committal, court of protection and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Sentence first, verdict afterwards

Posted on February 2, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

Some extraordinary appeals kicking around – there’s a cracker called Re A, which involves a judge shouting at a 13 year old child and threatening to make costs orders against her personally (but I’m waiting for that to go up on Bailii).

 

In the meantime, this little treasure.

Re S-W children 2015

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/27.html

 

Three children, 14, 11 and 10. They’d been living with grandparents for about a year and a half by the time the case came to Court, because the mother was having problems with alcohol and drugs and was struggling to end a violent relationship.  There had been a period just before issue where rehabilitation looked like a possibility, but the assessment looking at that had been unsuccessful.

It wasn’t an initial hearing where there looked to be great prospects of these children returning to mother’s care, but one has to bear in mind that these were not tiny tots, but children of 14,11 and 10, and who would have their own views to express and be considered.

The Children’s Guardian had made it plain in the initial document that she hadn’t been able to meet the children yet, but knew that all three were saying they wanted to go home to mother, and that this would be an important part of her work.

The first hearing then, was one in which all of the lawyers were in agreement that there was some work to be done

 

i) The local authority would pay for a drugs hair strand test on the mother. This was a matter of considerable importance …….because

ii) the local authority were to convene a Family Group conference in order to see if a way could be found for LW to return, in whole or part, to the care of his mother. It was hoped that if that could safely be achieved, it might act as a break on the disruptive behaviour which was leading to the constant breakdown in his placements. The local authority note of the meeting says “is it just about good enough with mum, may be able to go back.” The timetable was to provide for an addendum to the parenting assessment already filed by the local authority;

iii) Efforts were to be made to trace the father of ES who had not been served;

iv) Neither of the grandmothers wished to be considered as foster carers and therefore Special Guardianship assessments were to be carried out by the local authority with a view to securing the future of those two children by the making of Special Guardianship Orders;

v) It was agreed that a slimmed down number of documents from that listed by the Guardian in her report would be disclosed, but that only one or two of those documents would be placed in the bundle. This would allow the Guardian to carry out a full review of the case whilst ensuring compliance with Practice Direction 27A – Family Proceedings: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be applied in the High Court and Family Court)… the Bundles Direction) para 5.1 which limits the court bundle to 350 pages of A4 text; (see also Re W (Children)(Strict Compliance with Court Orders) [2014] EWFC 22);

vi) The matter would be listed for an early Issues Resolution Hearing (IRH) with a view to the case being concluded substantially within 26 weeks.

 

The Judge, His Honour Judge Dodds (who you might remember from https://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/07/02/go-on-then-appeal-me-i-dare-you     – they did, he lost)  took something of a robust approach, making Care Orders and ending the case at the first hearing, making that decision within minutes, not listening to anyone, and not giving a judgment.

 

  1. A transcript of the hearing in front of the judge has been made available; it reveals that within a matter of minutes, the judge had made abundantly clear, in trenchant terms, his determination to conclude the case there and then by making final care orders. The judge was fortified in his approach, he told the parties, by the fact that the previous week (30 July 2014), an application for permission to appeal in relation to another final care order he had made at the CMH in a different case had been refused by McFarlane LJ : Re H (Children) Case No: B4/2014/2033.
  2. The judge was scathing of the Guardian’s report and her reasons for requesting further information, saying that “advice about the practice direction that came in on 31st July” (a reference to the new Bundles Direction), would signal the end to what he referred to as “this sort of Victorian detail”.
  3. In relation to LW’s situation he said that whilst he wished LW “every good luck in the world but the Children Act and the court has nothing to do with it”.
  4. All the parties crumbled under the judge’s caustically expressed views, and as a consequence, were unable to explain to the judge that the situation was more complicated than the one the judge clearly saw, and expressed. The judge viewed the case as one in which he had before him three children each of whom had been in care for well over a year, two of whom were in settled placements. The mother he saw had had a recent positive drugs test, and therefore in his mind, the inevitable outcome was the making of care orders. The judge said that all future placement decisions in relation to LW would be made by the local authority through the Looked After Children review process (LAC reviews).
  5. At one stage the judge referred to the mother as looking “upset and bewildered”. It is hard to see how she could have looked otherwise given the course the proceedings were taking.
  6. The judge gave neither a judgment nor reasons prior to making final care orders in relation to all three children.

 

I imagine there was something of a sprint or scissors-paper-stone battle as to which of the parties was going to appeal this first.  Bear in mind that this was a DIRECTIONS hearing, the first hearing in the case and that nobody had been suggesting that the Court should make final orders.

 

The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the Judge might, just might, have exceeded his robust case management powers, and instead made an order which was disproportionate and unfair.

The fact that when Permission to appeal was granted, McFarlane LJ had effectively said to the appeal judges “Bloody hell folks, you really need to check THIS ONE out” was rather telling:-

“In any event, there is a compelling reason sufficient to justify this case being considered by the Court of Appeal. The judge’s approach could not have been more robust. He sought to justify such an approach on the basis that recent family justice reforms and case law. There is a need for the Court of Appeal to consider whether such a robust summary approach is justified and/or required by the recent extensive changes to procedure and case law and, if so, how the basic requirements of a fair trial and judicial analysis are to be accommodated in such a process”.

 

Nicely put.  The  approach adopted ‘could not have been more robust’  – well, not unless the advocates in sequential order had carefully and precisely driven their cars into the Judge’s own car in front of him, moments before the hearing. The Court of Appeal do wonders with their “hell to the power of no, squared”

  1. The expectation is therefore that a CMH will ordinarily be an essential management hearing designed to get the case in proper order to enable it to be ready for disposal, whether by consent or following a contested hearing, within 26 weeks. This is in contrast to the IRH when all the evidence, including expert evidence should be filed and where, unlike the CMH, the rules specifically require consideration to be given as to whether the IRH “can be used as a final hearing” (PD12A Stage 3- Issues Resolution Hearing)
  2. Every care judge will be conscious that, whilst it is in a child’s best interests for their future to be determined without delay, it is equally in their best interests that the management of the case which determines their future should be fair and Article 6 compliant. The danger lies when, as unfortunately happened here, vigorous and robust case management tips over into an unfair summary disposal of a case.

 

The President took up the baton

  1. My Lord has drawn attention to the famous words of Lord Hewart CJ in R v Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256, 259. In the present case it is unhappily all too apparent that no dispassionate observer of the proceedings or reader of the transcript could think that justice was done, let alone that it was seen to be done. It was not.
  2. Vigorous and robust case management has a vital role to play in all family cases, but as rule 1.1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 makes clear, the duty of the court is to “deal with cases justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved”. So, as my Lord has emphasised, robustness cannot trump fairness.
  3. In the context of case management, fairness has two aspects: first, the case management hearing itself must be conducted fairly; secondly, as I observed in the passage in Re TG to which my Lord has referred, the task of the case management judge is to arrange a trial that is fair. Here, there was a failure in both respects.
  4. We are all familiar with the aphorism that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. But justice can equally be denied if inappropriately accelerated. An unseemly rush to judgment can too easily lead to injustice. As Pauffley J warned in Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and Reasons) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR 1384, para 40, “Justice must never be sacrificed upon the altar of speed.”
  5. Rule 22.1 gives the case management judge extensive powers to control the evidence in a children case: see Re TG, paras 27-28. But these powers must always be exercised, especially in care cases where the stakes are so high, in a way which pays due regard to two fundamental principles which apply as much to family cases as to any other type of case.
  6. First, a parent facing the removal of their child must be entitled to put their case to the court, however seemingly forlorn. It is one of the oldest principles of our law – it goes back over 400 years, to the earliest years of the seventeenth century – that no-one is to be condemned unheard: see Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] EWHC 551 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 42, paras 28-29. As I observed (para 55):

    “The fact, if fact it be, that the circumstances are such as to justify intervention by the State, … does not absolve the State of its duty nonetheless to act fairly. It is not enough for the State to make a fair decision: the State must itself act fairly in the way in which it goes about arriving at its decision.”

    A parent who wishes to give evidence in answer to a local authority’s care application must surely be permitted to do so.

  7. Secondly, there is the right to confront ones accusers. So, a parent who wishes to cross-examine an important witness whose evidence is being relied upon by the local authority must surely be permitted to do so.
  8. I stress the word important. I am not suggesting that a parent has an absolute right to cross-examine every witness or to ask unlimited questions of a witness merely with a view to ‘testing the evidence’ or in the hope, Micawber-like, that something may turn up. Case management judges have to strike the balance, ensuring that there is a fair trial, recognising that a fair trial does not entitle a parent, even in a care case, to explore every by-way, but also being alert to ensure that no parent is denied the right to put the essence of their case to witnesses on those parts of their evidence that may have a significant impact on the outcome.
  9. Quite apart from the fundamentally important points of principle which are here in play, there is great danger in jumping too quickly to the view that nothing is likely to be achieved by hearing evidence or allowing cross-examination, in concluding that the outcome is obvious. My Lord has referred to what Megarry J said in John v Rees. The forensic context there was far removed from the one with which are here concerned, but the point is equally apposite. As I said in Re TG, para 72:

    “Most family judges will have had the experience of watching a seemingly solid care case brought by a local authority being demolished, crumbling away, at the hands of skilled and determined counsel.”

  10. I agree with my Lady that there can, in principle, be care cases where the final order is made at the case management hearing. But, unless the decision goes by concession or consent, it will only be exceptionally, in unusual circumstances and on rare occasions, that this can ever be appropriate. Re H, to which my Lady has referred, was such a case, but the particular and unusual facts which there justified a summary process need to be borne in mind. Re H is not and must not be treated as justification for any general principle, let alone for proceeding as the judge did in the present case.
  11. Quite apart from the fact that such a ruthlessly truncated process as the judge adopted here was fundamentally unprincipled and unfair, it also prevented both the children’s guardian and the court doing what the law demanded of them in terms of complying with the requirements of the Children Act 1989 and PD12A. I agree with my Lady’s analysis, in particular in relation to care plans and the meaning and effect of the various provisions in sections 31 and 31A of the Act to which she has referred.

 

Now, of course Judges are human beings, and can have a bad day. And of course, there are some Judges who would have read the background and thought “well, this is one that has some inevitability written all over it”. There might even be Judges who would cut back on the timetable proposed by the parties and view this as a fast track case. One could make a reasonable argument for finishing this case in 10 weeks rather than 26.

There might even be Judges who are unable to supress what their eyebrows think of the whole state of affairs.

But if you’re a Judge in a family case who has made a decision which the appeal Courts can describe as ruthlesss, fundamentally unprincipled and unfair, then things have gone very badly wrong.

I don’t practice in this particular area of the country, but I wonder whether any advocate representing a parent could possibly feel that their client is going to get a fair hearing from a Judge who was capable of making a decision of this sort.

 

18 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
← Older Posts
Newer Posts →