Jake Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY,The Hon. Mr Justice Eady |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 2968 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ06X01544 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 13 December 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 2968 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION
The Hon. Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ06X01544
Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC (instructed by Bolt Burdon Kemp) for the Claimant
Catherine Foster (instructed by Halliwells) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 26 to 29 November 2007
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.
Introduction
The Claimant (who has adopted the name of Jake Pierce) is aged 31. He is clearly a troubled young man in numerous respects. In particular, it is stated in the joint psychiatric report that he is “a very disturbed man who has had serious mental health problems throughout his life” and that “the main diagnosis in adulthood is emotionally unstable personality disorder, which is sometimes known as borderline personality disorder”. In addition, it is accepted that he suffers from “particular problems of anxiety and agoraphobia which can be considered part and parcel of the underlying personality disorder”. He was also diagnosed some years ago as being HIV positive and is receiving appropriate medication. As to the earlier period of his life, it is agreed that “he had severe psychological problems in childhood and required special schooling throughout because of severe behavioural problems that were pervasive and caused problems at home and at school”.
He was born Lee Adrian Wilson on 1 March 1976, although he is now estranged from his family and sought to sever all ties when he changed his name at the age of 18. The name of his mother is Susan Morris and his father is called Tony Wilson. There are six siblings, two of whom (including a twin sister) are mentally handicapped.
He brings a claim against Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Defendant”), alleging breach of duty on the basis of failure to take competent steps to protect him during his childhood. Reliance is placed on JD & Others v East Berkshire NHS Trust & Others [2003] Lloyds Law Rep Med 552, where it was recognised that a local authority which carries out investigations into child abuse owes a duty of care to any child potentially at risk. (See also the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2007] EWCA Civ 1186.)
It is clear that his circumstances were known to the social services department of the Defendant Council shortly after his birth and that he was removed from his family and placed in foster care from the summer of 1976 until November 1977. It is then alleged that he was returned to the care of his mother and father without any proper assessment or investigation to justify that course. Moreover, thereafter it is said that there was inadequate follow-up and monitoring. He finally left the home environment towards the end of 1990, when he was nearly 15 years of age, by which time he had suffered (on his own case) severe neglect and emotional and physical abuse from his parents. He also suffered, later, sexual and physical abuse while living on the streets, periodically, from about the middle of 1990.
A summary of the Claimant's case on liability
It is necessary at this stage to identify the detailed nature of his complaint and the individual respects in which it is said that the Defendant was in breach of duty. As the experts have pointed out, much has changed or developed since the mid-1970s so far as the standards of child monitoring and assessment are concerned. There have also been a number of statutory changes. It is important, therefore, to apply the relevant standards and criteria for the various periods which fall to be considered.
The allegations are contained in paragraphs 51 to 57 of the particulars of claim:
“51. From when the Claimant was removed into care in July 1976 at the age of 4 months his plight ought to have been known to the Defendant and steps ought to have been taken to prevent the Claimant suffering abuse, neglect and physical and emotional harm from his parents. The Defendant failed to provide an adequate level of monitoring and supervision from when they returned the Claimant home in July 1977.
52. Within a few weeks of his return home the Claimant's weight dropped so significantly that he was required to be an in-patient in hospital for 3 weeks; with competent care it ought to have been apparent that his mother was not capable of providing an adequate level of care for the Claimant.
53. When the Claimant was returned to his family again in November 1977 the Defendant failed to carry out a proper or adequate assessment of the family home and his parents' ability to care for him.
54. After the Claimant had returned home the Defendant failed to monitor him adequately or at all; with proper monitoring it would have been apparent that the Claimant was likely to suffer significant harm if placed at home. Proper investigation would have revealed that the Claimant was
a. not properly fed;
b. not provided with an adequate level of hygiene;
c. was being beaten, assaulted and physically injured;
d. was being bullied and tormented by his family;
e. was not attending school regularly.
55. The Defendant ought to have known that:
f. the Claimant was a vulnerable child whose parents were unable to care for him;
g. the Claimant's mother had been unable to adequately protect the Claimant from abuse by the Claimant's father;
h. the Claimant frequently suffered from bruising;
i. the Claimant suffered severe scalding in 1979.
56. The Defendant ought to have known that when the Claimant was missing from home in 1990 he was at immediate risk of danger and ought to have taken steps to discover his whereabouts or to take him into care.
57. In failing to protect the Claimant from abuse by his family the Defendant, its servants or agents, were negligent and the Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of its social workers and social work managers in that they:
(a) failed to give proper consideration to the overall management of the Claimant's welfare as a child when he had been identified as living in a household with a family who were clearly unable to look after him. In particular it was known or ought to have been known that the Claimant had suffered severe injuries and abuse from his family.
(b) failed to carry out any comprehensive review of the family when the Claimant moved back to his parents' home in November 1977 or to make any proper plan for the family.
(c) despite noting concerns about the Claimant's mother and her ability to parent the Claimant and his siblings the Defendant failed to make any proper assessment of the Claimant's mother's ability to care for the Claimant.
(d) having been made aware in 1979 of the risks set out above that the family posed to the Claimant when he suffered severe burns, the Defendant failed to investigate adequately or at all whether the Claimant was at risk. Proper investigation would have led to the conclusion that he was and remained at a significant risk when living in a household with his mother and father. Such competent investigation would have shown that his family was persistently physically abusing, emotionally abusing and neglecting the Claimant as set out in the complaints of abuse referred to above. The only competent conclusion from proper investigation would have been that the Claimant was at risk and required removal from home.
(e) the Defendant failed to interview the Claimant sufficiently or at all away from his family so as to ascertain whether he was subjected to actual abuse or the threat of abuse by his family.
(f) the Defendant failed to remove the Claimant from the home in which his family lived when it was known or ought to have been known to the Defendant that his family posed a foreseeable risk of harm to the Claimant. Even after the Claimant ran away from home in 1990 the Defendant took no steps to ascertain his whereabouts or his welfare.
(g) having left the Claimant in the home with his family the Defendant failed to visit sufficiently often to ascertain that the Claimant was being abused by his family.
(h) the Defendant failed to allocate to the Claimant a social worker in whom he could build sufficient trust to confide the abuse and failed to provide a social worker who could have spoken to the Claimant away from home and in particular away from his family.
(i) failed to carry out sufficient investigations or sufficiently competent investigations to be able to provide information to the Court from 1977 that the Claimant was not safe if placed with his family.
(j) after the Claimant had left the family home in 1990 to live on the streets, failed to ascertain this or the reasons for this and to provide help and support for the Claimant.
(k) when the Claimant was taken into care in 1991 the Defendant failed to obtain adequate counselling, help and support for the Claimant to mitigate the damage that had been done to him by the abuse of his family, the period the Claimant had lived on the streets, and the sexual, physical and emotional abuse he suffered.
(k) failed to provide a reasonable standard of care and support to the Claimant in circumstances where with competent investigation they ought to have discovered the extensive abuse suffered by the Claimant whilst living in the Defendant's area.
(l) once it was apparent to the Defendant the extent to which the Claimant had suffered abuse, failed to take any steps to protect him and placed him in unsuitable institutions including a Barnados Home in Tadcaster where he was detained beyond the point at which it could be reasonably said to be in his best interests to detain him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X v Hounslow London Borough Council
...Civ 1151, [2004] QB 558) in relation to suspected child abuse and the institution of care proceedings and in Pierce v Doncaster MBC [2007] EWHC 2968 (QB) in relation to the return of children in foster care to their parents) and in the present case both the respondents, though adults, fun......
-
(1) CN v Poole Borough Council
...Bedfordshire cannot survive the Human Rights Act …” 17 The approach in D v East Berkshire had been adopted in Pierce v Doncaster MBC [2007] EWHC 2968 (QB) and NXS v London Borough of Camden [2009] EWHC 1786 18 Mr Stagg representing the Defendant submitted that the decisions of the House o......
-
Jake Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
...Council, appealed against the decision of Eady J, sitting in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court on 13 December 2007 (see [2007] EWHC 2968 (QB), [2008] 1 FCR 122), to allow the claim of Jake Pierce, who alleged that the defendant’s failure to take him into care as a child had negli......