Jake Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Hughes,Lord Justice Thorpe |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 383,[2008] EWCA Civ 1416 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2008/0107 |
| Date | 12 December 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1416
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN`S BENCH DIVISION
THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY[2007] EWHC 2968 (QB)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Sedley
Lord Justice Hughes and
Mr Justice Hedley
Case No: B3/2008/0107
Miss Elizabeth –Anne Gumbel QC and Mr H Witcomb (instructed by Bolt Burdon Kemp )
for the Respondent
Mr Michael Kent QC and Miss Catherine Foster (instructed by Halliwells Llp)
for the Appellant
Hearing dates : 22 nd and 23 rd October 2008
This is the Judgment of the Court.
The claimant, when in his late twenties, sued the defendant Local Authority in common law negligence upon the allegation that it had failed to take him into care as an infant and in consequence exposed him to abuse and grave neglect by his parents. He complained of a continuing failure to take him into care from the age of approximately 18 months until he was 15, but as the case developed it was refined to focus on events in (i) November 1977 (aged 18 months), (ii) May 1979 (aged 3) and (iii) 1990–91 (aged 14–15). The Judge found for him on (i) but against him on (ii) and (iii). The Local Authority appeals against the decision upon (i). It does not challenge the existence of a duty of care. The issues raised are (a) whether there was a basis for a finding of breach in November 1977, (b) if so, whether there was a basis for a finding that that breach caused the claimant to remain in his family for years when otherwise he would not, (c) whether, if so, damages for injury by violence as distinct from by neglect were recoverable and (d) whether the Judge misdirected himself upon section 14(3) Limitation Act 1980. The Local Authority also appeals upon the quantum of damages.
On any view, and whatever the cause, the claimant has the misfortune to be a very damaged young man. A jointly prepared psychiatric report concluded that he is a “very disturbed man who has had serious mental health problems throughout his life.” The principal diagnosis in adulthood is of emotionally unstable personality disorder, attended by agoraphobia and anxiety; further he is HIV positive and requires constant medication. The personality disorder was foreshadowed by severe behavioural problems necessitating special schooling throughout his childhood. At the age of fourteen, in 1990–91, he left home and lived either rough as a rent boy, in a commune, or with two men who were themselves in a homosexual relationship. His own conviction is that his misfortunes are the result of physical abuse and neglect by his parents, and would have been avoided if he had been removed from them in infancy.
The claimant and his twin sister were born on 1 March 1976. His mother and father were not married to one another, but were living together, if in a relationship characterised by periodic brief separations. His mother had two older girls, A (four and a half years older than the twins) and K (about 18 months older than them). K had significant mental disability, or learning disabilities. Later it was to transpire that the twin sister was also similarly handicapped. At the time of the birth of the twins, the family lived in a rented house of their own. They were short of money and the rent was not being paid properly, in part because Father was irresponsible and often spent the money elsewhere. Mother was struggling to cope. Standards of housekeeping were very poor.
On 7 July 1976 both twins were placed temporarily by the Local Authority with foster parents, clearly by arrangement with Mother, because she was going into hospital for termination of a further pregnancy. The claimant returned to Mother on 28 July, after about three weeks, his stay away having been prolonged because of instability in the parents' relationship, culminating in Father leaving Mother. It seems that the twin sister stayed with the foster parents. The Social Worker, Mrs Callaghan noted at that early stage that since the claimant had been fostered voluntarily under section 1 Children Act 1948, the Authority could not prevent his being returned home, but that a careful eye should be kept on his progress and on Mother's ability to cope.
Only about four weeks later, on 19 August 1976, having been alerted by the Health Visitor, Mrs Callaghan had to take the claimant to hospital. He was grubby, had the 'frozen awareness' stare of a neglected baby and had lost weight when he should have gained it; he was some 800 grammes under par. Mother was ill. The paediatrician was anxious that he should not simply be returned home to the same conditions on discharge.
Mrs Callaghan and her Group Leader decided that efforts should be made to persuade Mother and Father that the claimant, as well as his twin sister, were better off being looked after other than at home and that they should agree to their being in voluntary care under section 1 of the 1948 Act. The attitude of both parents was reluctant. At times Father was demanding of return and when the proposition was first put to her Mother was angry and distressed. However, within a day or so, agreement was given. The claimant went from hospital to the foster parents, joining his twin already there. That was on or about 8 September 1976; he was six months old. As things turned out, he remained there until 8 November 1977, when he was returned to his parents in supervised housing in a Rehabilitation Unit. It was this return in November 1977 which the Judge found to have been negligent.
Throughout the intervening fourteen months there was regular contact between the social worker and the parents' household, as well as between the social worker and the foster parents. Circumstances in the parents' home fluctuated but were clearly a long way short of satisfactory. Father was out of work for most of the time. He often squandered the rent and eviction was threatened. In November 1976 Mother left him for a while and, after living with the elder girls at the home of Father's sister, became homeless and had to be found temporary lodgings. In the end, she returned to Father in the family home. There was a period of a week or so when Mother failed to answer the door to the social worker; that turned out to be because Father was wanted by the police and in the end he gave himself up and was then in prison for a period in early 1977. Other than that, Mother was generally co-operative but often not coping well. The house was often dirty, though at times Mother and/or Father tried to clean up and made some efforts to re-decorate. The two older girls were sometimes properly cared for, clean and tidy, and sometimes not. The eldest was often not taken to school. At times, Father was living partly with Mother and partly elsewhere. Significantly, Father did not visit the twins in their foster home at all; Mother's efforts at visiting were occasional and disorganised.
Early in January 1977, at a point when Father was in prison and the parents were speaking of marrying on his release, Mrs Callaghan and her supervisor decided that if the family was to have an opportunity of successfully being reunited, the best prospect lay in their being accommodated in the Bentley Rehabilitation Unit. It consisted of eight separate houses around a square, to be occupied by the families being helped. A three-bedroomed home was proposed for this family. There were wardens living on site, who could keep an eye on them and no doubt offer advice, and there may have been some group activities organised. It did not, of course, offer the kind of intensive testing and training nowadays provided by Family Assessment Units. In this case it seems to have had the potential to solve the housing difficulties and to provide some level of supervision and support, particularly for Mother. The parents were seen by the Unit in March 1977 and approved as prospective residents at the end of April. The approval of the Housing Department had to be obtained, which came in May. The place for them was not available until June. Mother, Father and the two older girls moved in on 27 June 1977. Whereas up until now, the claimant had not visited the parents at home, and had seen not very much of Mother, arrangements were now made for him to be taken to the new house. His response to those visits was very mixed. The early ones were not successful and Mother was ill at ease handling him. On some occasions he appeared to settle, but there were clear signs of distress not mirrored when owing to a brief illness of the foster-mother he had to move to another foster home for about ten days.
This critical period coincided with a hiatus in the allocation of social worker. Mrs Callaghan moved to a different posting on about 20 September 1977. There is then a gap of just under a month in any record of contact by any social worker, save for a report from the warden at Bentley that there had been a row between the parents and that Mother, who had initially refused to allow the warden in, was saying that the relationship was over. Then, from the latter part of October, a different social worker managed some six or seven contacts between Mother and the claimant. They also were of mixed success.
On 8 November 1977, the claimant was moved to live with the parents at Bentley. In the end his twin sister did not accompany him. Her significant disabilities and special needs had been discovered in the meantime, and a few days before the move Mother told the social worker that she had reluctantly come to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace Mugweni (a Patient by her Mother and Litigation Friend Susan Ruth Mugweni) v Nhs London (as Successor to the South East London Strategic Health Authority)
...In this regard we were referred (as had been the judge) to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bailey v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 383; [2009] 1 WLR 1052. There, in the context of a medical negligence case, Waller LJ (with whom Sedley LJ and Smith LJ agreed) summarised ......
-
VN and Another v London Borough of Brent and Others
...some abuse/neglect, but not over the period that they allege". He points as an example of how this can happen to the case of Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Council [2007] AER 188 where the court accepted that there may in such cases be a degree of exaggeration and dramatisation of what too......