R (Deeqa Mohammed) v The Local Safeguarding Children's Board for Islington London Borough of Islington (Interested party)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Honourable Mr Justice Cobb
Judgment Date27 November 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 3966 (Admin)
Date27 November 2014
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/2642/2014

[2014] EWHC 3966 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Cobb

Case No: CO/2642/2014

Between:
R (Deeqa Mohammed)
Claimant
and
The Local Safeguarding Children's Board for Islington
Defendant
London Borough of Islington
Interested party

Ian Wise QC (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine) for the Claimant

Bryan McGuire QC (instructed by Islington Legal Services) for the Defendant

Christopher Baker (instructed by Islington Legal Services) for the Interested Party

Hearing dates: 12 November 2014

The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb

Introduction & summary

1

The Claimant, Deeqa Mohammed, is the mother of a young girl, Nawaal, who on 25 June 2013 fell to her death from the 11 th storey of a block in the local authority area of the Interested Party, the London Borough of Islington ("LB Islington"); at the time of her death Nawaal was aged 7 years 4 months old. For some years, Nawaal had presented with challenging behaviours on the autistic spectrum, and had for the majority of her life been the subject of assessments, and interventions, by various departments within LB Islington. Specifically, LB Islington Housing Department had been directly involved in considering the Claimant's eligibility for re-housing.

2

By application dated 6 June 2014, the Claimant sought a mandatory order by way of judicial review requiring the Defendant to commission a Serious Case Review ("SCR") into the death of her daughter. She further sought:

i. An order pursuant to CPR rule 3.1 extending time for the issue of her application;

ii. An order directing that the matter is fit for expedition and such directions and orders as are necessary to ensure that the matter is heard as soon as possible.

3

The application for permission to apply for judicial review was considered on the papers by Mr Justice Mitting on 26 June 2014, and was refused by him (see [23] below). The application was listed for hearing in August 2014, but then adjourned (for reasons explained at [24–25] below).

4

The Defendant then sought advice from the National Panel of Independent Experts ("NPIE") about the issues arising in this claim. On 27 August 2014, and following receipt of that advice, the Defendant informed the Claimant that it would after all conduct an SCR in relation to the death of Nawaal. It invited the Claimant to withdraw the claim; the Claimant declined to do so. The renewed application for permission was listed for hearing on 12 November 2014.

5

Shortly before the listed hearing date, the Claimant requested a further adjournment, having encountered further difficulties with her public funding; this application to adjourn was placed before me on 10 November. Although not unsympathetic, I declined the application having been informed that a meeting of the Legal Aid Agency Special Controls Review Panel was due to take place that day; I hoped that the legal aid issue would be resolved (one way or another) in time for the hearing. My optimism was, unusually, rewarded. By the time of the hearing on 12 November 2014, the Claimant had the benefit of a full public funding certificate, had instructed leading counsel and was prepared to argue the case.

6

At the outset of the hearing, leading counsel for the Claimant, Mr Ian Wise QC, indicated that the Claimant wished to amend/refine her claim to substitute for the mandatory order (see [2] above) a declaratory order in these terms:

" a declaration that known or suspected abuse or neglect of a child in Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Local Safeguarding Children Board's Regulations 2006 includes known or suspected abuse or neglect on the part of a public body".

This re-formulation of the claim had been presaged in the original grounds of the claim (per §2(ii) of the Claimant's Grounds) viz:

" Clarification of the law is necessary to ensure that failings including neglect of children on the part of public bodies give rise to a duty to instigate serious case reviews where the child dies or is seriously harmed and there is concern at the way the relevant agencies have worked to safeguard the child." (my emphasis)

In essence, the Claimant wished to contend that the London Borough of Islington – either through its children's services, its disabilities' services and/or housing department – had been responsible for actual or suspected 'neglect' of Nawaal. In the circumstances, it was to be argued, the LSCB was required to commission an SCR.

7

In the circumstances, Mr Wise sought:

i. Permission to amend his claim to reflect the declaratory relief sought in [6] above;

ii. An order permitting an extension of time for filing her claim;

iii. Permission to apply for judicial review;

iv. The joinder of the Secretary of State for Education, as an Interested Party, and

v. An expedited hearing.

8

The Defendant and the Interested Party did not formally oppose the proposed amendment to the claim, but opposed all forms of substantive relief identified in [7(ii)-(v)] above.

9

Detailed submissions were made by counsel for the parties, and I was guided to the relevant case law. Given the late amendment to the proposed claim, the detail and quality of the submissions, and the significance of the issues raised, I indicated that I would reserve this judgment for a short time.

10

By this judgment, I set out my reasons for refusing the application for permission to apply for judicial review. No party has requested anonymisation.

Background

11

For an understanding of this claim, and my decision, it is helpful that I should set out a little relevant factual context.

12

Nawaal was born in 2006, one of twin girls. In or about October 2009, when Nawaal was about 3 years old, she was assessed as displaying behaviours on the autistic spectrum; she was assessed as a 'child in need' pursuant to Part III of the Children Act 1989, and accepted as such by the LB Islington although (so far as I am aware) no professional concern was raised about the Claimant's care of her daughter. Nawaal attended a special needs school.

13

At about the time of the said assessment (October 2009) the family moved to a home on the 11 th floor of a block in the area of LB Islington.

14

On numerous occasions in the period between 2010 and 2013, it appears that LB Islington was advised of Nawaal's lack of safety awareness, her unpredictability, her craving for being outside and for climbing and exploring, and her challenging behaviour. In February 2013, the Claimant's solicitors threatened LB Islington with judicial review proceedings for its failure to carry out a proper needs assessment for the purposes of her housing application. The various communications from the interested agencies (or at least some of them) are detailed in the Grounds of Claim; I have read those, together with the Claimant's statement, with care although it is unnecessary for me to rehearse the contents more fully here. It suffices for me to reproduce a communication written by LB Islington on 25 March 2013, in which it was said that:

" Nawaal has no awareness of danger and enjoys climbing and jumping… if the window is open just a crack she will try and get out through it regardless of where it is … the longer Nawaal is inside the more frustrated she gets … she has no awareness of danger and enjoys climbing… This is a situation that is far too dangerous to continue this way. It is not a case of if Nawaal will fall but a case of when." (emphasis added)

15

Three months later, this appalling prophecy was fulfilled.

16

Following Nawaal's death, the Defendant arranged and held 'Rapid Response' meetings (28 June 2013 and 28 July 2013) to evaluate the circumstances of this tragic event, and in order to establish if there were (and if so what) lessons to be learned. A Multi Agency Management Review was convened, which ultimately reported on 22 February 2014.

17

On 4 September 2013, Dr. Tony Wheeler, a community paediatrician and Chair of the 'Rapid Response' meetings (as designated doctor for child death and safeguarding, with responsibility for reviewing services provided for all children in the area of the Defendant who have died), wrote to the Claimant attaching his report for the Coroner; in that report it was said that:

" The issues identified were focused on housing, and abuse and neglect were not identified as factors in Nawaal's care or death. The consensus at both Rapid Response Meetings was that the requirements for a serious case review were not met." (emphasis added)

18

In this regard, the reference in the report to the absence of 'abuse and neglect' plainly, it seems to me, referred to the provision and quality of parental care. Dr. Wheeler's report concludes by indicating that ongoing consideration of the case would pass to the Islington Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP). Later (December 2013) Dr. Wheeler indicated that the CDOP would not review the case further until the post mortem results were obtained.

19

An inquest into Nawaal's death had been opened; this process concluded in February 2014, with the Coroner finding (so I am advised) that " the fall was foreseen by various organisations working with the family who had been communicating concerns to the council since May 2010". The verdict was one of accidental death.

20

On 17 February 2014, the Claimant, through solicitors, wrote to the Defendant asking whether a final decision had been made about an SCR. The Defendant replied on the following day confirming that it was not intending to hold an SCR as the death did not arise from suspected or actual abuse or neglect. On 6 March 2014,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Deeqa Mohamed v The Local Safeguarding Children's Board for Islington
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 6 October 2015
    ...Cobb J on 12th November 2014. He handed down a comprehensive judgment on 27th November which may be found under neutral citation [2014] EWHC 3966 (Admin). A full recital of the deeply distressing facts and the arguments can be found in that judgment. 7 In refusing permission the judge conc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT