Birmingham City Council v Sarfraz Riaz and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Keehan,Mr Justice Keehan |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam) |
| Date | 15 December 2014 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: BM14P09068 BM14P09070 BM14P09071 BM14P09073 BM14P09074 |
[2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Keehan
Case No: BM14P09068
BM14P09069
BM14P09070
BM14P09071
BM14P09073
BM14P09074
Lorna Meyer QC, Stefano NuvuloniandHeather Popley (instructed by Birmingham City Council) for the Applicant
David Kelly (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Ahmed Williams) for the 8 th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (pro bono) for the 8 th Respondent
Joanna Chadwick (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9 th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9 th Respondent
Sarah Simcock (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Joint Legal Services, Birmingham) for the 11 th Respondent
Poonam Bhari (19 November 2014 hearing onwards) (instructed by Greens) for the 12 th Respondent
Hearing dates: 13, 17, 22, 27 October 2014
, 19, 20, 27 November 2014
The Honourable Mr Justice KeehanThe judge gives leave for this judgment to be reported in this anonymised form. Pseudonyms have been used for the young person involved in this matter and her mother.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them and the respondents identified by name in the judgment may be identified by his or her true name or actual location and that in particular the anonymity of the young person and the members of her family must be strictly preserved.
Mr Justice KeehanIntroduction
In this matter I am concerned with a vulnerable young person, AB, who is 17 years old. It is asserted by the local authority, Birmingham City Council, that she is the victim of Child Sexual Exploitation ('CSE') by, at least, ten much older men.
For a considerable period of time, AB did not consider herself to be a victim of CSE. It is, sadly, so common for victims of CSE not to recognise or accept that they are victims. All too often they have suffered abusive and neglected childhoods and are attracted to and flattered by the men who seek them out. They are seduced by the attention given to them whether by way of compliments, gifts, drugs or alcohol.
The worrying and widespread prevalence of CSE is referred to in a number of recent reports including the Independent Inquiry into CSE in Rotherham 1997–2013, the Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Legislation for Tackling CSE and Trafficking within the UK, Barnado's 2014, the Office of the Children's Commissioner's Inquiry into CSE in Gangs and Groups Final Report, November 2013, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in Child Sexual Exploitation and the Response to Localised Grooming Second Report published on 10 June 2013 and the report of Ann Coffey MP "Child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester" from October 2014.
Applications and Orders Sought
The local authority responded to the sexual exploitation of AB in the usual way of seeking a secure accommodation order. The intention was to restrict her liberty, to prevent her from associating with men who sought to abuse and exploit her, to keep her in a place of safety and to support her in coming to an understanding of the risks of harm these men posed to her.
Initially AB opposed the making of a secure accommodation order. When the matter came before me for hearing on 17 October 2014 she, with the benefit of legal advice, consented to the court making the order.
The West Midlands Police have worked in close co-operation with the local authority. The police came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence at that time to secure criminal convictions against the ten individuals before this court in relation to their association with and/or conduct towards AB.
Accordingly the local authority decided to take a bold and novel step, namely, to apply for civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The injunctive orders sought to prevent any further contact or association with AB or with any female under the age of 18 years, previously unknown to them, in a public place.
The injunctive orders sought were drafted with reference to a number of recent legislative provisions which sought to prevent antisocial or sexually harmful conduct, namely the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (antisocial behaviour orders) and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences prevention orders and risk of sexual harm orders).
The final version of the substance of the injunctive orders sought against each of the ten respondents is as follows:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. From the time this order is served upon X until the date specified in this order X Must Not:
a. contact AB by any means, in person and or through any third person whether by way of face to face contact, telephone (mobile/landline/facetime/skype etc.), text messages, MSM, blackberry, chatrooms, or other social media whether or not such contact is invited in the first instance by AB
b. seek the company or be in the company of AB whether or not invited to do so in the first instance by AB
c. approach AB in any manner, whether in public, on the street or other public areas such as parks, in private addresses open to certain members of the public such as any food outlet, retail outlet, café, public house, bar, hotel, club, nightclub etc, on public transport, in or at any premises associated with a sporting or entertainment activity or in any private residence, whether or not invited to do so in the first instance by AB
d. follow AB in any location public or private
e. approach any female, under the age of 18 years, not previously associated with him on a public highway, common land, wasteland, parkland, playing field, public transport stop/station.
f. pass on details for AB for example name, location, address, telephone numbers at which she can be reached or the names of other persons through whom she can be contacted save as directed by the police or order of the Court.
g. incite, encourage or facilitate the introduction of AB to any other male.
h. incite or encourage any other male to seek any form of contact with AB
i. cause, permit or allow AB or other female previously unknown to him and who may be under the age of 18 years to enter into or remain in any private motor car or taxi in which he is driving or travelling as a passenger.
And is bound by such order until 18 th August 2015.
2. From the time this order is served upon X until the date specified in this order X shall immediately report any contact, or attempt at contact by AB, or any person contacting or attempting to contact them on her behalf to either (or both)
a. The West Midlands Police on 101 'Force Control'
b. Birmingham City Council, Social Services Emergency duty team on 0121 675 4806
And is bound by such order until 18 th August 2015.
3. From the time this order is served upon X until the date specified in this order X shall immediately report any contact with him by any person seeking information about AB or passing on information about her and to provide the name and contact details of the person to either (or both)
a. The West Midlands Police on 101 'force control'
b. Birmingham City Council, Social Services Emergency Duty Team on 0121 675 4806
And is bound by such order until 18 th August 2015.
4. From the time this order is served upon X until the date specified in this order X Must Not:
a. Contact or attempt to contact, approach or attempt to approach AB's mother XY.
And is bound by such order until 18 th August 2015.
I was satisfied on reading the papers and after hearing submissions, that in all the circumstances of these applications, it was appropriate for me to grant the local authority permission to apply to the court for orders in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to s100(3) Children Act 1989.
Interim Hearings
The applications for injunctive orders first came before the court on 10 October 2014. HHJ Hindley QC heard the application for without notice interim orders in private and directed the matter be listed before me at 2pm 13 October.
I heard the applications on 13 October in private. SAJID Hussain appeared in person and did not wish to seek legal representation. On 7 October 2014 police officers were looking for AB who had absconded from her residential unit. At 3am police officers approached a car. On seeing the police the occupants got out of the car and attempted to make off including, I am satisfied, AB and SAJID Hussain. The police spoke to them. Sajid Hussain admitted he was the owner of the car, AB was intoxicated and a bottle of brandy was found in the car.
He did not seek to challenge the local authority's case against him and, accordingly, a final order was made against him on the basis that I accepted the written evidence presented to me.
Imran Uddin attended the court on 13 October but, knowing that his case had not yet been called on, he left the court building and did not return. The events concerning Imran Uddin are set out in paragraphs 97 to 106 below. Being satisfied on the written evidence presented that he was engaged in the grooming of AB for the purposes of CSE, I made final orders against him.
On 13 October Mohammed Javed did not oppose the making of injunctive orders against him. He did not wish to seek legal advice nor to be legally represented. The events concerning Mohammed Javed are set out in paragraphs 78 to 88 below. Thus being satisfied on the written evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Borough of Redbridge v SNA
...of age. 3 Mr Kyri Lefteri, who appears on behalf of the Local Authority sought to rely on the judgment of Keehan J in Birmingham City Council v Sarfraz Riaz and Others [2014] EWHC 4247. There the Judge, at paragraph 9 of his judgment made orders to the following effect; a) Contact AB by any......
-
H v A (No.2)
...Re J (Reporting Restriction Order) at [75]). However, I respectfully agree with, and adopt the observation of Keehan J in Birmingham City Council v Riaz and others [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam) that: "There comes a point, however, where evidence is not merely speculative but is pure speculation, e......
-
X (A Child acting by her Children's Guardian) v Y
...the child (see Re J (Reporting Restriction Order) at [75]). However, as Keehan J noted in Birmingham City Council v Riaz and others [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam): “There comes a point, however, where evidence is not merely speculative but is pure speculation, even from experienced professionals, ......
-
Birmingham City Council v SK (by her Children's Guardian)
...child sexual exploitation against SK. 6 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 inju......
-
Better information sharing, or “share or be damned”?
...re at the micro level with regard to “naming a nd shaming”practices”, I turn to the case of Birmingham City Council v Riaz and others (2014) EWHC4247 (Fam).In the Riaz case, no less than ten men in Birmingham were identified, purportedly for the purposeof enforcing injunctions for the purpo......