Deeqa Mohamed v The Local Safeguarding Children's Board for Islington

( )

This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against the order of Cobb J of 12th November 2014, whereby he refused permission to the claimant to apply for judicial review. The claim form was directed (i) at the defendant's failure to comply with its duty to undertake a serious case review into the death of the claimant's daughter, Nawaal and (ii) the defendant's failure to exercise the discretion that it had to undertake such a serious case review.

Permission to apply for judicial review was first refused by Mitting J on 27th June 2014 in these terms:

"1. This claim is out of time. The defendant decided not to undertake a serious case review at meetings held on 28 June, 23 July and 15 August 2013, the outcome of which was notified to the claimant in a report said to have been sent to her on 4 September 2013 (and date stamped 25 September 2013) by Dr Tony Wheeler. Instead, the defendant and the interested party decided to set up a multi-agency management review. The conclusions of that review were set out in a report dated 22 February 2014. This claim was not issued until 6 June 2014.

2. No good purpose would be served by a serious case review. There has already been a full inquest and a multi-agency management review, which made sensible proposals for minimising the risk of death caused to children in the same position as that of the claimant's late daughter.

3. Further, and in any event the claimant's basic contention that 'neglect' encompasses alleged shortcomings in the interested party's system for allocating social housing is not arguable."

The third reason given by Mitting J identifies the underlying issue which arises in this case and which the claimant wishes to argue. In a tragedy which occurred on the 25th June 2013, Nawaal fell from the balcony of the family's eleventh floor flat in Islington. She was only 7 years old. The council was well aware that Nawaal, who had various difficulties, was lacking in safety awareness and very active. She was at risk of falling if she were able to gain access to the balcony or climb from a window.

The circumstances were that Nawaal was not in the care of the local authority, but for the purposes of the various legislation in play she was a child in need. It was in these circumstances that the claimant contends that by regulation 5(2)(a) of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006, a serious case review was required because "abuse or neglect of a child" was known or suspected. It is argued that the term "neglect" for these purposes should be interpreted broadly to encompass a failure on the part of anyone, but in these circumstances focusing particularly on the local authority, to take steps to protect a child against a known risk.

The application for permission to apply for judicial review was renewed at an oral hearing before Cobb J on 12th November 2014. He handed down a comprehensive judgment on 27th November which may be found under neutral citation [2014] EWHC 3966 (Admin). A full recital of the deeply distressing facts and the arguments can be found in that judgment.

In refusing permission the judge concluded, as had Mitting J, that the claimant's construction was untenable. He also considered that the claim had by then become academic. That was because the council had agreed to conduct a serious case review on 27th August 2014. Whether or not they were obliged to do so, it was common ground that they had a discretion to do so. In those circumstances the judge was unpersuaded that it was appropriate to allow what had become for the claimant an academic claim, to proceed.

In the course of...