Hertfordshire County Council v W
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1992 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Date | 1992 |
| Court | Family Division |
BOOTH, J
Care proceedings – application for interim order – presentation of evidence restricted – court deprived of material information – reasons to be recorded before decision and stated when decision announced.
Procedure – care proceedings – application by local authority for interim order – magistrates limiting presentation of evidence – whether depriving themselves of material information – failure to give reasons at time of decision – whether decision could stand.
Reasons – requirement for reasons to be given at time of decision – applicable to all decisions including interim decisions.
The mother had three children, all boys, aged 4, 3 and 2 respectively. The eldest and youngest boys were the children of one man. The father of the middle boy was another man. The mother was not living with either father but was associating with a third man. The two elder boys lived with the mother. The youngest boy lived with his maternal great-aunt. The middle boy suffered a non-accidental injury consistent with a punch to his head. The mother at first said she had hit the boy but, after a few days, said that the boy had been hit by the man with whom she was associating. The local authority obtained emergency protection orders in respect of the two elder boys and they were placed with foster parents. The local authority applied for interim care orders in respect of all three children, proposing that the two elder boys should stay with the foster parents and the youngest boy should remain with the great aunt. The local authority sought the order in respect of the youngest boy to ensure the mother did not attempt to remove hini from the great-aunt. Relatively little time was allotted to the application and the magistrates prevented counsel for the local authority from cross-examining the mother to the extent he wished to pursue, as fully as he would have wished, the question of who caused the injury to the middle boy. The magistrates made an interim care order in respect of the middle boy, refused to make interim care orders in respect of the other two boys, but made a prohibited steps order prohibiting the mother from allowing the man she had said caused the middle boy's injury into her house. The magistrates gave no reasons for their decision and, when asked to give their reasons, the clerk stated that it was not necessary for them to do so as the court was making only interim orders.
The local authority appealed. A document purporting to be the magistrates' reasons, signed by the clerk, was made available to the parties 11 days after the decision and six days after the notice of appeal had been filed.
Held – allowing the appeal: By r 21(5) and (6) of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children
Act 1989) Rules 1991 the decision-making process was spelled out. Before the court made an order or refused an application or request, the justices' clerk must make a written record of the reasons for the court's decision and any findings of fact. At the time of making an order or refusing an application, the court must state any findings of fact and the reasons for its decision. Those provisions were mandatory and applied to an interim decision as well as to a final decision. The document purporting to be the magistrates' reasons was fatally flawed and could not be admitted on the appeal: Hillingdon London Borough v H[1992] 2 FCR 299 followed. Further, as the magistrates had failed to comply with r 21(5) and (6) of the 1991 Rules their decisions were unsafe and could not be relied on. It appeared that by interrupting the advocate for the local authority in his cross-examination of the mother, the magistrates had deprived themselves of material information.
The matter would be transferred to the county court and remitted for rehearing.
AppealAppeal from St Albans family proceedings court.
David Sharp for the local authority.
Karoline Sutton for the mother.
Alan Inglis for the great-aunt.
Cheryl Williams for the children and guardian ad litem.
MRS JUSTICE BOOTH.This is an appeal from decisions of the St Albans family proceedings court on 17 July 1992. It raises a matter of particular importance in relation to the reasons which justices are now required to give in accordance with the Family...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W (Child: Contact)
...rr 14(1)(d), 21(5), (6) and (7). Family Proceedings Rules 1991, r 9.2(A). Cases referred to in judgment:Hertfordshire County Council v W[1992] 2 FCR 885. Hillingdon Borough Council v H[1992] 2 FCR 299; [1993] Fam 43; [1993] 1 All ER JR v Oxfordshire County Council[1992] 2 FCR 310. M (Child)......
-
Re R (A Minor) (Child Case: Procedure)
...[1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] 2 All ER 225. G (Children's Cases: Instruction of Experts), Re[1994] 1 FCR 106. Hertfordshire County Council v W[1992] 2 FCR 885. M (Prohibited Steps Order: Application for Leave), Re[1993] 1 FCR 78. PB (A Minor) (Hearing in Private), Re [19961 3 FCR 705. Practice D......
-
T v W (Contact: Reasons for Refusing Leave)
...Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991, r 21(5) and (6). Cases referred to in judgment:Hertfordshire County Council v W[1992] 2 FCR 885. M (Prohibited Steps Order: Application for Leave), Re[1993] 1 FCR S v S (Children: Financial Provision)[1993] 1 FCR 805; [1993] Fam 200; [1993]......
-
Hampshire County Council v S
...s 34. Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991, rr 17, 20 and 21. Cases referred to: Hertfordshire County Council v W[1992] 2 FCR 885. Hillingdon London Borough v H[1992] 2 FCR 299. JR v Oxfordshire County Council[1992] 2 FCR 310. AppealAppeal from Andover family proceedings......