A County Council v SB, MA and AA
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR NICHOLAS WALL |
| Judgment Date | 15 October 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2528 (Fam) |
| Date | 15 October 2010 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: LU10C03125 |
[2010] EWHC 2528 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before: Sir Nicholas Wall
The President of the Family Division
Case No: LU10C03125
Kate Hudson (instructed by the County Council) for the Applicant
Rachel Gilman (instructed by Brethertons) for the 1st and 2nd Respondents
Elizabeth Oldham (solicitor, of Manchins Solicitors) for the 3 rd Respondent
Simon Crowder ( CAFCASS) for the Guardian
Hearing dates: 5 October 2010
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment is being handed down in private on 15 October 2010 It consists of 7 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
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 other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Sir Nicholas Wall P
1. In this case, a District Judge in the County Court is in the midst of hearing care proceedings relating to a young woman, A, who was born on 23 October 1993, and who is thus rising 17. Pursuant to section 31(3) of the Children Act 1989 “no care order or supervision order may be made with respect to a child who has reached the age of 17……”. It is therefore imperative that the care proceedings relating to A are completed before she is 17, and they have been carefully time-tabled to ensure that this is so.
2. What has brought the matter to this court is a discrete issue of disclosure, which the District Judge has transferred to the High Court for resolution. In the event, after I had heard oral evidence from the relevant witness, the bar was unanimous that disclosure should be made. That, accordingly, was the order which I made on 5 October 2010, with a proviso that there should be no onward disclosure by the parties beyond themselves, but with disclosure to the police being deferred to be dealt with by the District Judge hearing the care proceedings. As the point is nonetheless an important one, I reserved my reasons, which I now give.
3. I need to make it plain at the outset of this judgment; (a) that I am imposing reporting restrictions for the purposes of this hearing (this judgment is being written anonymously); and (b) that nothing in it is designed in any way to influence the outcome of the decision which the District Judge will make prior to 23 October 2010 in the County Court. Miss Kate Hudson, for the local authority in the case, made it clear that she would be pursuing the application in relation to A who, on the local authority's case, is at risk of “honour” based violence if a care order is not made. A, it appears, currently wishes to return to live with her parents. Whether or not there should be a care order, and whether or not A returns to live with her parents are not issues before me, and this judgment will deal exclusively with the question of disclosure.
The facts
4. The matter arises in the following way. A was born of parents who originate from Pakistan. She has, however, spent her entire life in the United Kingdom, and is a British subject, as are her parents. She is the fourth of her parents' five children. The local authority commenced care proceedings on 23 February 2010. Prior to that date, A, at her own request, had been accommodated since 3 December 2009.
5. The reason for the care proceedings has its origins in the fact that A has formed a relationship with a young man, whom I will call AF. A's parents disapprove of AF, who, like A was brought up in England, but whose parents originate from Bangladesh. There has also been a series of incidents which concern the local authority, and which I propose to summarise.
6. In September 2009, A was found close to her home by a member of the public. Her hands were tied together, and she had a piece of broken glass with her. She was in a state of extreme distress. The member of the public concerned made a ‘999’ call, as a result of which the police attended the scene. A was reluctant to give any information to the police, and told them that she had tied her hands herself. She did, however, tell them that there was domestic violence at home with her father being abusive towards her mother. In oral evidence to the district judge the officer concerned said that A had said words to the effect that her parents were always getting at each other.
7. At the end of November 2009, A went missing for three days, having it is said, been initially locked in the house by her mother. She later said that she spent the three days with AF.
8. On 3 December 2009 it is alleged that AF was “kidnapped” by two of A's brothers, taken to an address and then threatened by the brothers over his relationship with A. The two brothers were arrested, and there are pending criminal proceedings against them. These were to be heard prior to the determination of the care proceedings, but they have now been put back to December 2010. It is not suggested that A or her parents had any direct connection with this incident.
9. On 4 December 2009, A was placed in foster care, where she remains to date. Her attitude to her placement has appeared ambivalent. At times she has expressed fears of going home: at others she has expressed a wish to do so. Latterly her wish to return home has become more fixed, and she has been having contact with members of her family (not all of it known to, or agreed by the local authority).
The relevant court orders
10. On 24 February 2010 an order under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 was made, and (inter alia) A was made the subject of an interim care order until 13 April 2010. A case management conference was listed for that day The judge directed the local authority to file its interim care plan and a risk assessment in relation to A by 31 March 2010.
11. I do not have a copy of the order made on 13 April 2010.
12. On 10 May 2010. the interim care order in relation to A was renewed until 21 May and on 26 May, at the conclusion of a five day hearing, the judge delivered a judgment which resulted in the interim care order being renewed until 23 June 2010. (It has since been renewed administratively).Amongst other directions, the judge directed a case management conference on 17 August 2010, and also ordered an honour related abuse assessment from an expert to be filed by 14 July 2010. The judge's judgment has been transcribed, and is in my papers.
13. By this stage A and the guardian had parted company, and A was represented by a solicitor whom she was instructing direct. On 20 August, however, the expert's report was not ready. The judge retained the date of 20 September for the final hearing, and gave further directions designed to ensure that it was effective
14. By 29 September 2010, the expert had written a second report which contains information which had influenced the expert, but which had not been disclosed. Unfortunately, the point could not be disposed of on 29 September and thus question of the second report's disclosure was adjourned to 5 October 2010, when I heard it. It was also directed on 29 September that the expert's second report should be disclosed to the parties' legal advisers, the parties having given irrevocable instructions not to impart the information contained within it to their respective clients.
The evidence of A's parents
15. A's parents assert that they are not strict Muslims and have no issues about family members marrying people with a different religion. They strongly deny putting any pressure on A, and they assert that at no point have they suggested that she should go to Pakistan to marry. They deny assaulting her and say that they would never do so.
The expert's first report
16. This is dated 25 August 2010, and has been disclosed to the parties. It is an extremely long document, running to some 50 pages. The author read all the documents and had interviews with all the participants in the proceedings, including A and AF. The interviews are reported in considerable detail. The expert concludes that A is not at immediate risk of forced marriage, but recommends that the FMPO remains in place. The expert also expresses the view that a legal framework of protection should remain in place for both A and AF until the criminal proceedings are concluded “and a comprehensive follow up review of (A's) circumstances is undertaken”.
The oral evidence of the expert to the district judge and the expert's second report
17. During the course of the expert's oral evidence to the district judge it transpired: (1) that the expert had received information from A and others which had not been included in the first report; (b) that this information had influenced the expert's conclusions; and (c) that neither this information, nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RC v CC
...(disclosure), Re[2012] UKSC 60, [2013] 1 FCR 69, [2013] 1 All ER 761, [2012] 3 WLR 1484, [2013] 1 FLR 948. A County Council v SB[2010] EWHC 2528 (Fam), [2011] LGR 160, [2011] 1 FLR Al Rawi v Security Service[2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 All ER 1, [2012] 1 AC 531, [2011] 3 WLR 388. B (disclosure ......
-
RC v CC (by her Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) and Another
...was already by then a recognised practice in wardship. It is mentioned by Sir Nicholas Wall P in A County Council v SB, MA and AA [2010] EWHC 2528 (Fam), [2011] 1 FLR 651, para 37. There can be no doubt as to the legality of the practice: see, for example, R (Mohammed) v The Secretary of St......
-
Wt v Ylc
...Fam Law 686, [2011] 2 FLR 533, [2012] 1 FCR 139; S v AG (financial remedy; lottery prize) [2011] EWHC 2637 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 651, [2011] 1 FLR 651, [2011] 3 FCR 523; JL v SL (Financial Orders: Property inherited during marriage) [2014] EWHC 3658 (Fam) were referred to (paras (6) Hong Kong......
-
NCC v AH and Another
...The reports are, therefore, confidential to the court, as described by Sir Nicholas Wall, President, in A County Council v. SB, MA & AA [2011] 1FLR 651. At para.34, he said: "In my judgment, 'confidentiality' in this context means that the information contained in the papers filed with the ......