A Local Authority v AG
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Mostyn |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWFC 18 |
| Date | 16 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: ZW20C00036 |
| Court | Family Court |
and
and
[2020] EWFC 18
Mr Justice Mostyn
Case No: ZW20C00036
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Hannah Markham QC & Ms Kate Tompkins (instructed by HB Public Law) for the Applicant
Ms Gemma Taylor QC & Ms Gemma Farrington (instructed by Astrea Law) for the 1 st Respondent
Mr Damian Woodward-Carlton QC & Ms Jennifer Youngs (instructed by Corper Solicitors) for the 2 nd Respondent
Ms Jo Delahunty QC & Ms Lucy Logan Green (instructed by Creightons) for the 3 rd Respondents
Mr Emeka Pipi, standing counsel for the diplomatic mission, acting as observer
Hearing date: 3 March 2020
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this anonymised version of the judgement to be published. In no report may the children be identified directly or indirectly; breach of this restriction will amount to a contempt of court
There are six children living at the family home in London: S (5), G (9), A (14), N (17), E (18) and D (18, a paternal half-brother). Also living there are the mother and the father. The father is a serving diplomat at a diplomatic mission.
These proceedings concern the three youngest children.
On 25 November 2019, E contacted the Local Authority and reported that her siblings were being physically chastised at home. She said she was predominantly concerned for D, who she said is hit by her father. She also recalled that G had been hit by her mother for breaking the television, and that S had been pulled from the floor by her hair by her father.
On 16 January 2020, the primary school attended by S and G then made a referral to the Local Authority. The referral states:
“During an English vocabulary lesson the chn [children] were defining the word ‘lashing’. When I described ‘lashing’ as being hit with a whip or a belt [G] said ‘oh, I get hit with a thick belt everyday by my Mum, but my Dad is much worse’. I asked him to clarify if he meant what he had said and he said ‘yes, every day for watching too much TV.’”
On the same day, a social worker employed by the Local Authority spoke to G at school. G said that he was hit by his mother with a belt when he broke the television, which caused his arm to bleed, and that he was hit a lot and gets ‘lashings’. He also said that his father had pulled S off the floor by her hair when she ‘broke the internet’. The social worker's statement says:
“[G] advised that in relation to this incident, [his father] advised [his mother] that she should not harm him to the extent which would require hospital attendance as this may lead to professionals becoming aware of the physical chastisement.”
S was also briefly seen on that day and said that D hit her ‘all the time’.
On 20 January 2020, G, A, N and S were spoken to at school by social workers. On that occasion, G reported that on 18 January 2020 he and S had been hit with a belt by their mother because they were watching television on a laptop. He said that his mother made them stand with one leg in the air and one finger on the floor for two hours, which made his shoulders hurt, and said it was not the first time he had had to stand in such a position. G recalled that after this, his mother hit him on the back with the strap of a belt twice and hit S with the belt four times. He repeated that he had been beaten with a belt by his father after breaking the television and said that after this E made him kneel on the floor with his hands in the air.
Although A did not disclose any incidents when she had been physically harmed, she confirmed that her father hits the children with a belt and said that G had been hit by her mother after he had broken the television. Similarly, S did not disclose any instances of physical chastisement. She appeared to be reluctant to talk to the social worker.
N said that she suffers from pain and loss of sight in her left eye, which she had first noticed after her father had hit her hard on the left side of her face when she was 15. She also recalled that her father had once hit her hand with a broken chair leg because she had left the gas on. She said that he wanted to ‘beat her’ but did not because she had an optician appointment the next day. N also reported that G had been beaten for breaking the television, and that S had been picked up by her hair. She said that her mother puts hot water on G's face to try to reduce marks from where she has hit him.
These proceedings, seeking a care order under Part IV of the Children Act 1989, were commenced on 21 January 2020. The Local Authority also sought an emergency protection order. Given the father's status the case was allocated within the Family Court to High Court judge level and came before me the following day, 22 January 2020. Clearly, the question of the immunity of the father and of members of his family forming his household from civil proceedings needed to be examined carefully. Until that issue had been determined no emergency orders could be made. Therefore, I granted the Local Authority permission to withdraw the application for an emergency protection order. My substantive order contained a recital which stated that the parents were warned that their conduct towards the children, of which there was strong prima facie evidence contained in the documents before the court, must not be repeated. Further, there was a recital that expressed the opinion of the court that it would be reasonable for the children to be able to speak to the Local Authority's officers in private. These recitals would have been carefully noted by Mr Pipi, standing counsel to the diplomatic mission, who had attended the hearing.
My order provided that the question of immunity would be considered at a one-day hearing fixed for 3 March 2020. I directed that the papers should be disclosed to the diplomatic mission and to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, each of which would be given permission to intervene and to file skeleton arguments. I later gave permission for the papers to be disclosed to the Department for Education for the same purpose.
On 23 January 2020, E told the social worker that her father had said she would pay for what she had done. She said that she, N and A had been woken at 4.00am by their parents, who told them to withdraw their allegations. She said that her father had said the children must give statements saying that they had lied because E told them to say they were being abused so that she could stay in the UK for university.
On 24 January 2020, the social worker was sent an email from the children containing letters about their life at home. The letters were also sent to the court. They were dated 22 January 2020. A's letter was undersigned by S and G and said:
‘We didn't mean what we said to [the social worker], we're sorry for our parents and wish to continue with both of them…Therefore we want to stay and live under them. we do not want to do any case against our parents.’
Further letters were received from E and D, dated 22 and 23 January 2020. They said that home life was peaceful; that their parents take good care of them; and that they did not want court proceedings to continue. When spoken to by the Local Authority, A said that she had written a letter because she was worried about her father losing his job.
On 31 January 2020, the parents were due to be visited by Children's Services before they went on a trip to their home country. However, the father cancelled the visit, claiming that he had work obligations.
On 21 February 2020, D confirmed the allegations made by his siblings and said that the abuse had happened more frequently in their home country. He said that his father often hits, shouts and verbally abuses him. He recalled that in 2019, his father had hit him with the wooden leg of a broken chair because his friend had given him a new pair of shoes. D also spoke about when his father picked up S by her hair. D said that his father had hit S so hard that it was as though he was hitting an adult.
On 25 February 2020, the father contacted the Local Authority and agreed to a home visit. This took place on 28 February 2020. The parents denied hitting the children and said that E and D had coerced their siblings into making allegations so that the father would agree to E staying in the UK.
The parents refused to sign working together agreements as they saw no need because they denied hitting the children. They said they would allow the social worker to conduct school visits and see the children.
The social worker's last visit to the children before this hearing was on 27 February 2020. No new allegations were raised by any of them.
The proposed working together agreements were eventually signed by the parents on 28 February 2020. In them the parents agree:
i) not to hit the children or to use any other form of physical punishment;
ii) not to discuss the details of the case with the children;
iii) to communicate openly and honestly with the Local Authority;
iv) to allow social workers to conduct school visits to see the children in order to ascertain their views; and
v) to allow social workers to undertake announced and unannounced visits to the home on a regular basis.
Miss Markham QC rightly submits that this is a formidable case of deliberate historic harm and risk of future harm, both physical and psychological. It is true that the parents have deliberately chosen not to meet the case against them before the immunity issue has been determined. But even so, it seems extremely unlikely that they would be able to defeat an application for an interim care order which requires proof of no more than reasonable grounds for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basfar v Wong
...in a recent case as “one of the most important tenets of civilised and peaceable relations between nation states”: A Local Authority v AG [2020] EWFC 18; [2020] Fam 311, para 38 (Mostyn J). At the international level the relevant law is contained in articles 1, 22–24, 27–40 and 45 of the Vi......
-
Basfar v Wong
...in a recent case as “one of the most important tenets of civilised and peaceable relations between nation states”: A Local Authority v AG [2020] EWFC 18; [2020] Fam 311, para 38 (Mostyn J). At the international level the relevant law is contained in articles 1, 22–24, 27–40 and 45 of the Vi......
-
Re AG (a child) (diplomatic immunity)
...Kingdom[1998] 3 FCR 597, [1998] 2 FLR 959, (1999) 27 EHRR 611, 5 BHRC 137, 1998 Fam LR 118, [1998] Crim LR 892. A Local Authority v AG[2020] EWFC 18, [2020] Fam 311, [2020] 3 WLR 133, [2021] 1 All ER 257, [2020] 1 FLR 1265. A Local Authority v AG (no 2)[2020] EWHC 1346 (Fam), [2020] 2 FLR 7......
-
The London Borough of Barnet v AG (A Child)
...finding that there was “a formidable case of deliberate historic harm and risk of future harm, both physical and psychological” ( A Local Authority v. AG [2020] 3 WLR 133). He was sympathetic to Barnet's case, but thought it would be a step too far to use the interpretative provision in se......