Birmingham City Council v SK (by her Children's Guardian)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keehan |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 310 (Fam) |
| Date | 19 February 2016 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: BM15P08274 |
[2016] EWHC 310 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Keehan
Case No: BM15P08274
Ms Lorna Meyer QC and Mr Stefano Nuvoloni (instructed by Birmingham City Council) for the Applicant
Mr Piers Pressdee QC and Ms Jacqueline Wehrle (instructed by Glaisyers Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 20 January 2016
Introduction
In this matter I am concerned with one young person, SK, born on 25 May 2000 she is 15 years of age.
The local authority asserted that SK was a young person at risk of child sexual exploitation and issued care proceedings in respect of her on 12 March 2015. It issued an application for an injunction against the alleged perpetrator of the child sexual exploitation on 19 March 2015.
In light of subsequent developments, to which I will refer, the local authority now seeks permission to withdraw the application for injunctive orders.
Background
SK, from the age of 13, was absenting herself form the family home. It was discovered that she was keeping the company of much older men. She was beyond the control of her parents. Her case came to the attention of the local authority and of the police. Hence the care proceedings were issued and an application for an injunction was made against an individual, LG, who it was believed was sexually exploiting SK.
There was a meeting of MASE on 5 October 2014 when he was mentioned as a possible perpetrator of child sexual exploitation against SK.
The local authority thus made the application for a Birmingham City Council v Riaz and othrs [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam) [2015] 2 FLR 763 (' Riaz') style injunction against him. On the basis of the information then before me on 24 March, I granted the injunction as sought.
Within days of making that order, however, it became evident that there had been a serious lack of communication and/or a misunderstanding between the police and the legal department of the local authority. It also became clear that LG had quite wrongly been identified as a possible perpetrator of a child sexual exploitation of SK at the multi agency meeting held on 20 January 2015.
Quite properly the local authority immediately applied to me to discharge the injunction against LG. I granted the same but required a detailed explanation from the local authority and from the police as to how such a serious mistake had been made. I was promptly provided with an explanation which I accept. I do not propose to lengthen this judgment by reciting the same save that I accept it was a genuine and unintended error borne of lax and less than rigorous procedures.
The local authority and the police, with the court's approval, wrote an entirely suitable and regretful letter of apology to LG. The material passages of that letter are:
"… The order had been granted by the High Court on the basis of evidence and information gathered by the local authority in the exercise of its safeguarding duties. The information that indicated that you might have involvement with the individual named in the order was provided to the local authority by West Midlands Police at a meeting on 23 rd September 2014, again as part of safeguarding procedures….
….On the 27 th March 2015 information was received by the local authority legal department from West Midlands Police. That information made clear that it was not thought that you were in fact involved with the child in question….
….The reason that Birmingham City Council sought an order against you was that information was received from West Midlands Police (WMP) at a social services meeting in September 2014, that there was a log connecting you to a relevant address and potentially to the child in question.
However, a break down of safeguarding procedures within the local authority meant that this link with LG was considered to be accurate even after, at another safeguarding meeting on the 20 th January this year, West Midlands Police made it clear that LG was not thought to be involved with the child.
Prior to the hearing at court on the 24 th March 2015 the local authority sought to ensure that the information it relied upon remained accurate. However, the steps taken failed to highlight that you were not involved with the child….."
The positive outcome of this most serious and unfortunate set of circumstances has been the creation of a Protocol devised by the local authority and the police. It is an extremely helpful document which is the result of many, many hours of discussion and debate between the various agencies engaged in the field of child sexual exploitation.
The Protocol
The Protocol covers all stages of the investigation of cases of child sexual exploitation. The relevant parts of the Protocol dealing with the approach to and issue of court proceedings are set out in Stages 5 and 6 namely:
1 STAGE FIVE — CSE DISRUPTION LEGAL PLANNING MEETING (CSE – DLPM)
Following a recommendation from the MASE Meeting for CSE Disruption and approval thereof a CSE Disruption Legal Planning Meeting will be convened.
The CONVENER of the CSE – DLPM is charged with the responsibility of verifying whether (i) the recommendations of the MASE Meeting have been actioned, (ii) relevant information is circulated to the participants, (iii) the meeting is convened within 14 days of the referral, and (iv) ensuring that the meeting properly assesses the nature of the risk and the appropriate legal remedy.
a. STEP 1 – INTERNAL ACTIONS FOR CONVENER
i. Check that referral has been properly made by an allocated social work team and is based upon approval by Resource Panel
ii. Verify that all recommendations and actions identified by the MASE meeting have been actioned or identify reasons from the social work team as to why the recommendations have not been actioned
iii. Ensure all relevant and necessary documentation has been received, and/or requested and/or will be available no less than 3 days prior to the date fixed for the LPM
iv. Request that social work team provides all relevant documentation currently held (minutes of MASE meetings, minutes of any CP, CIN, LAC, STRAT Meetings, any CIN, LAC CP Plans, any assessments, any police information and /or disclosure already received) is provided to the Convener so that is can be considered at the CSE-DLPM (This is necessary to ensure that the elements of risk are properly identified and consequently the appropriate legal remedy is identified).
v. Request the list of invitees for CSE-DLPM from the social work team (identifying the appropriate Head of Service to be invited) and confirm the attendance of the WMP CSE Lead
vi. Liaise with BCC CSE Co-Ordinator to confirm invitees, identify any external agencies / individuals with relevant evidence to be considered at the CSE-DLPM
vii. Clarify with social work team the contact details for all relevant individuals to be invited to the CSE-DLPM
b. STEP 2 – ACTIONS FOR CONVENER
i. Liaise with WMP re specific issues [state of investigation; particular sensitivities; referral to CPS; applications to be made by WMP] and
ii. Liaise with other external agencies involved
c. STEP 3 – CIRCULATE INVITATION AND STANDARD AGENDA FOR MEETING (SEE AGENDA PRO-FORMA – INSERT PRO FORMA)
i. Populate invitation list
ii. Ensure all invitees are sent invitation, agenda and checklist by electronic mail
iii. Circulation of relevant documentation to invitees as appropriate
iv. CSE-DLPM Personal Information Checklist (See Divider x)
• Full names (including aliases and spelling variations), date of birth and gender of child/ren in the household;
• Family address and (where relevant) school attended;
• Identity of those with parental responsibility and any other significant adults who may be involved in caring for the child such as grandparents;
• Names and date of birth of all household members, if available;
• When necessary, the child's NHS number and education UPN number;
• Ethnicity, first language and religion of children and parents/carers;
• Any special needs of children or parents/carers;
• Known involvement of other agencies / professionals (e.g. GP);
• The parents' position in respect of the CSE risk as outlined in the MASE meeting and whether the parents played a role in the MASE Meeting
• The child's views and wishes, if known.
iv. CSE-DLPM CSE Information Checklist (See Divider X)
• Cause for concern including details of any allegations, their sources, timing and location;
• Child's current location and emotional and physical condition;
• Whether the child needs immediate protection;
• Details of alleged perpetrator(s), if relevant;
• Referrer's relationship and knowledge of child, any siblings and parents/carers;
• MASE minutes and CSE screening tool
v. CSE-DLPM Agenda (See Divider X)
The agenda for the meeting is designed to facilitate the proper consideration of all information available in respect of the CSE risk.
A clear distinction must be drawn between information which cannot be used (either because it is not relevant to CSE risk (NON RELEVANT INTELLIGENCE), not yet available in the appropriate form to be used (un-sanitised INTELLIGENCE) or because the information is of such a sensitive nature it cannot yet be used whatever form it is in – SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE) and information which can and should be used (EVIDENCE).
The role of the CSE DLPM meeting is to (i) sift the available intelligence in accordance with the above (ii) safeguard sensitive intelligence (iii) assess the available evidence (iv) identify if further evidence is required and (v) facilitate the collection and preparation of evidence.
For assistance the agenda will be as follows;
a. Available information
What information is available specific to CSE including...
To continue reading
Request your trial