A London Borough v RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Munby,Mr Justice Munby |
| Judgment Date | 30 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2423 (Fam) |
| Date | 30 September 2010 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD02P01268 |
[2010] EWHC 2423 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(In Private)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Munby
(now Lord Justice Munby)
Case No: FD02P01268
In the Matter of RB (Adult)
Ms Nicola Greaney (instructed by the London Borough) lodged written submissions on behalf of the Claimant
Ms Angela Hodes (instructed by the Official Solicitor) lodged written submissions on behalf of the First Defendant
The Second Defendant appeared in person
Hearing date: 21 August 2009
These are proceedings in relation to RB who was born in April 1946 and died on 7 December 2008. The Second Defendant, MF, was her partner for many, many years. It was an intense and for each of them the most important relationship of their lives. RB was English and a schoolteacher. MF is Iranian and a Professor with a doctorate in one of the exact sciences.
The proceedings: until RB's death
RB was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in about 1976. Her condition gradually deteriorated. She retired early in 1990. In March 2002 she moved to the A home.
On 15 August 2002 the local authority began proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction, prompted apparently by concerns expressed by the A home about MF's behaviour and his involvement with RB. The same day, 15 August 2002, the local authority applied ex parte to Johnson J who made an order forbidding MF to remove RB from the A home. That application had been supported by a witness statement from a social worker dated 14 August 2002 which alleged that MF had forbidden the staff at the A home to continue administering a drug called Baclofen which had been prescribed by RB's GP. It also insinuated, though it did not in terms explicitly allege, that MF had sexually abused RB who, it was said, was by then suffering from dementia and lacked capacity, inter alia, to consent to sexual relations with MF: "There are also concerns in respect of the sexual relationship between [RB] and her partner [MF] … There were also concerns about alleged sexual abuse". The witness statement had attached to it a letter report dated 10 July 2002 by Dr V A Watkin, a Consultant Old Age Psychiatrist, saying:
"She is a vulnerable woman at risk of abuse if she returned home. Indeed if there are concerns about alleged sexual abuse as it is doubtful whether [she] can give true informed consent to engage in intimate relations with her partner then this needs to be addressed".
Subsequently there were various directions hearings (including some dealt with on paper) which I need not describe. On 17 November 2003 Johnson J made an order permitting, subject to conditions, supervised home contact between RB and MF.
On 10 May 2004 the case came before Bracewell J for what had been intended to be the final hearing; in the event it was adjourned to enable MF to obtain legal representation. I have transcripts of part of the proceedings and of Bracewell J's judgment, both of which I have read. Bracewell J made interim declarations as to incapacity and best interests, including declarations that RB lacked capacity in all material respects, that she should continue to reside at the B home (the placement at the A home having broken down in December 2002, according to the local authority due to MF's behaviour; RB moved to the B home in February 2003), that it was not lawful, not being in her best interests, for RB to receive intimate and/or personal care from MF and that it was not lawful, being contrary to her best interests, for any person, including MF, to engage in sexual relations with RB. The order provided for MF to visit RB at the B home and, subject to conditions, for the home contact to continue.
The matter came before Roderic Wood J on 4 August 2005. I have a transcript of part of the proceedings, which I have read. Roderic Wood J observed (transcript page 3) that "This issue of so far unsubstantiated allegations [of sexual abuse] is bedevilling this case." Ms Greaney, then as now appearing for the local authority, indicated (transcript page 2) that the local authority would be "happy" to include an appropriate recital in an order that these "unproven allegations" are "not relied upon … and not proceeded with."
On 15 November 2005, McFarlane J gave directions for a hearing to determine whether MF should have greater privacy in his contact with RB at the B home and, in particular, whether he should be permitted to shut the door to her room during contact visits. His order directed that:
"there is to be no investigation or consideration by the Court of the issues of the administration of Baclofen to [RB] or any past allegations of sexual impropriety raised against [MF] by the [local authority]."
The hearing directed by McFarlane J took place before Ryder J on 4 April 2006. (I note in passing that Ryder J was the seventh judge to be involved, previous orders having been made by Hedley J and Bennett J as well as by Johnson J, Bracewell J, Roderic Wood J and McFarlane J.) I have transcripts of part of the proceedings and of Ryder J's two judgments, both of which I have read: [2006] EWHC 974 (Fam). Ryder J made a declaration by consent that it was not in RB's best interests to have Baclofen administered to her and, having heard evidence on these matters, further declared that it was in RB's best interests for MF to exercise contact with her behind closed doors at the B home but not when feeding her. The order provided for MF to apply if he sought determination of the factual allegations underlying the order made by Bracewell J on 10 May 2004 but went on to stipulate that:
"At any hearing that is a consequence of such an application the issues of Baclofen administration and the past allegations of sexual impropriety shall not be pursued against [MF]."
In his first judgment, Ryder J made certain observations about MF and his relationships with carers (paras [15]–[17]) which accord entirely with my own impressions. I need not set them out.
In his second judgment, dealing with costs, Ryder J observed (para [23]) that in his earlier judgment he had substantially disagreed with each of the positions before him, his appraisal of the credibility of the witnesses and the circumstances not being that put forward either by the local authority or by the Official Solicitor (RB's litigation friend) or by MF.
On 19 September 2006, His Honour Judge Meston QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, gave directions for the hearing of MF's application to set aside the orders made by Bracewell J on 10 May 2004. I have a transcript of the proceedings, which I have read. During the course of the hearing Ms Greaney said (transcript page 8):
"the local authority's position has always been that we did not rely on any allegations of sexual abuse and the justification for the orders made by Mrs Justice Bracewell were simply to do with [RB]'s clinical condition and the care that she now requires, and that has always been the local authority's position … we do not rely on any allegation against [MF]. Obviously there are issues about his general behaviour."
That final hearing was fixed before me (the ninth judge to have been involved) for 3 July 2007. There are transcripts of most of the hearing, which I have read. Unfortunately this hearing also had to be vacated, due to the non-availability of one of the expert witnesses. I gave further directions for the final hearing. My order contained the following recitals:
"Upon the claimant acknowledging that it does not seek and has not sought at anytime since August 2005 to advance a case against MF based upon allegations of sexual abuse of or sexual impropriety towards RB
And upon the Claimant and the Official Solicitor confirming that in their view no useful purpose would be served in the Court exploring at the trial the issues of the past allegations of sexual abuse or sexual impropriety or the past administration of the drug Baclofen because these matters are not relevant to RB's current best interests as regards residence, care and contact
And upon the Court deciding that neither the Claimant nor the Official Solicitor are to pursue the issues of past allegations of sexual abuse/sexual impropriety or the past administration of Baclofen
And upon the Court recording that MF seeks factual determinations in relation to all the past allegations of sexual abuse/sexual impropriety or the past administration of Baclofen and permitting MF to file evidence about those matters if he so chooses."
But it went on to make clear that "It will be for the trial judge to determine how those issues are to be dealt with at the final hearing."
On 5 November 2007 I made a further order adjusting the timetable.
The matter came before Bennett J on 15 January 2008. He made an order dismissing MF's application that RB be taken home pending the final hearing (then listed for July 2008) and declared that it was in her best interests to remain until then at the B home. I have a transcript of Bennett J's judgment, which I have read: [2004] EWHC 3465 (Fam) [sic].
On 22 February 2008, Black J (as she then was) gave further directions. On 3 March 2008 the matter came before Sumner J. He was the eleventh judge to become involved. In addition to giving further directions, he made an order, including injunctions backed with a penal notice, regulating MF's behaviour while RB remained at the B home. On 31 March 2008 RB moved to the C home.
In the event there was yet further delay, the final hearing not beginning before me until 1 December 2008. Before it had finished, RB died unexpectedly on 7 December 2008. As before, Ms Greaney appeared for the local authority and Ms Hodes for the Official Solicitor. MF appeared in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A London Borough v RB (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) and Another
...course of the proceedings I have given three judgments: the first, on 30 September 2010, following the final hearing: Re RB (Adult) [2010] EWHC 2423 (Fam): the second, on 28 January 2011, explaining why I refused MF's applications for a re-trial and/or permission to appeal: Re RB (Adult) (N......
-
Yao Essaie Motto and Others v Trafigura Ltd and Another
...dealt with on the papers Lord Justice Munby 1 I handed down my judgment in this matter on 30 September 2010: Re RB (Adult) [2010] EWHC 2423 (Fam). In paragraphs [33]–[36] I explained the unusual forensic context in which I had come to give judgment. In the circumstances I was not asked to m......