R (K) v Manchester City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 10 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | CO/8742/2006 |
[2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones
CO/8742/2006
MR IAN WISE (instructed by The Howard League) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR SIMON VAUGHAN (instructed by Manchester City Council) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is an application for permission to apply for judicial review made by the claimant, to whom I shall refer as K, in respect of a decision by Manchester City Council, a decision comprising an assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The claimant seeks an order quashing that decision and various declarations. He challenges the validity of the decision and seeks an order requiring the defendant to take a lawful decision to prepare a lawful assessment within a short period of time.
The claimant K is now 15 years of age. He is currently detained at Sutton Place Safe Centre which is a secure children's home in Hull. On 25 October 2005 he was sentenced to a period of detention for a series of offences including three counts of robbery involving the use of a knife, possession of an imitation firearm and handling stolen goods. The sentence was 2 years' detention with a 2 year extended licence period. At the time of committing the offences he was 13 years of age. The offences were committed in Manchester where he lived with his family and where his family still live.
Taking account of the time he spent on remand, he became eligible for parole on 30 May 2006. The Parole Board considered his application for parole and, on 5 June 2006, refused his application. The ground on which they refused the application included that he would be vulnerable in the community, where he would be among criminals and where he would be likely to revert to criminal behaviour. They considered that his interests would be best served by refusing him parole so that he was able to flourish in the safe environment of the centre.
That decision of the Parole Board was quashed by the High Court on 5 October 2006. The Parole Board will shortly reconsider the application for parole.
The present proceedings arise out of a request made by solicitors, acting on behalf of K, of Manchester City Council, the local authority in the area where K normally lives, that they conduct a child -in -need assessment of K pursuant to Section 17 of the Children Act. It is clear that one of the purposes of obtaining this assessment was to inform the Parole Board when it comes to reconsider K's application for parole. A further purpose was to ensure that K has the necessary support to meet his needs when he is released. He is bound to be released not later than 30 May 2007 and if his application for parole is successful, he is likely to be released before that date.
K's home background is a difficult one. His father has spent at least 11 years in prison for a series of offences, the precise nature of which are not known to us. His older brother has also been in prison. His mother does not speak English. The family live in a poor area of Manchester with a high crime rate.
In June 2006 when the Parole Board considered K's application it had before it two reports; one was written by Rifat Shaheen, K's home probation officer. That has been referred to in the proceedings as a YOT report, which is produced by the defendant authority's Youth Offenders Team. The other report was by Mr Walker who is the manager of the Sutton Place Safe Centre. The YOT report concluded that, given the excellent progress which K had made, the risk of harm which he posed to the community had reduced and could effectively be dealt within the community. Accordingly the application for parole was supported.
Mr Walker in his report described K's progress while at Sutton Place and spoke of him in extremely favourable terms. His behaviour was said to have been excellent. Mr Walker did however express concerns about K's background. In his report he said that K is anxious that he will not be able to resist the pressure to return to the gang and the lifestyle that comes with it. Mr Walker expressed his concern that it was highly likely that K would return to being involved in anti -social and offending behaviour despite the progress which he had made at Sutton Place; he had not been able to resist the pressure of becoming involved in gang related activities, did not have enough support in the community or at home to help him to do so. He said that there would need to be a structured and intensive package of support and supervision to help K make a successful transition back into the community.
The YOT report had recommended that there should be put in place a structure of supervision comprising twice -weekly meetings with the probation officer. In addition, it recommended that K be assessed for suitability for a close supervision scheme.
The Parole Board, in its decision of 5 June 2006, ``````````````refused the application. In their reasons they included the following passage:
"Unfortunately [K's] domestic circumstances and lifestyle remain areas of high concern in his core profile. [K's] father and brother are both repeat offenders who have served imprisonment for their crimes. [K's] mother has little English and appears not to be able to supervise his activities in the community; [K] used to truant from school in order to take part in gang activities including these violent crimes. When released, [K] will return to live in the family home back in the heart of his offending as the family are not going to be relocated. [K] has spoken openly about the risk of being drawn back into gang culture and the possibility that he would be subject to physical threat if he opts out of that culture. [K] has been known to refer to gang members as 'family'.
…..
The Board gave all the information careful examination. It is apparent that during his time detained in the secure home [K] has been advantaged by the support and supervision of the environment as well as by the educational, social and other opportunities of which he has made excellent use. His risk is further contained by his intelligence, inter -personal skills and insight which can flourish while he is in the Safe Centre. However [K] is still a child of almost 15 and is extremely vulnerable in the community. There is a strong possibility that if he is released at PED all the excellent work he has achieved will soon be ruined by gangland peer -pressure. He would be returned to a family in which the male members are pro -criminal role models and the female members appear to have limited control over [K's] behaviour and associates. [K] is at a high personal risk of intimidation and possible physical harm from other gang members and is, as yet, ill equipped to resist or flee the socio -environmental pressure."
It will be apparent that the reason for refusal of parole was essentially concern about the vulnerable position in which he would be placed. A substantial element of that related to his home environment.
The decision of the Parole Board was quashed by Mr Justice McCombe on a judicial review of 5 October 2006 on the grounds that the claimant was not given the assistance of an adult in making the application and that he was not given the opportunity to have an oral hearing. I am told that it is likely that the Parole Board will reconsider K's application for parole within the next four to six weeks.
As a result of the request made by solicitors acting on behalf of the claimant K, the defendant authority initially took the position that it was not required to carry out an assessment under Section 17. However with evident reluctance it did thereafter commission the preparation of an assessment. That was prepared by Mr John McDonald. It is dated 21 September 2006. It addresses the present arrangements for K in the secure home. There is a description of the family background and history. Only one paragraph refers to the position in which K will find himself if he returns home after his release. Mr McDonald did say in his report -
"Upon release from the secure environment I would assess that there would be a possible change in [K's] Child in Need status where there could be a potential increase in risk factors affecting [K], depending upon the environment in which he finds himself, which may impact upon [K] and his development. Presently protective factors feature prominently in [K's] development which will remain during his continued placement at Sutton Place Safe Centre."
Within the last few days Mr McDonald has produced an addendum to his assessment. This does make some attempt to consider certain issues relating to K's home environment. It records that K had disclosed to Miss Shaheen that there had been violence at home and he believed that if he were to return home this would place him in a vulnerable position. K had expressed the view that the only appropriate environment in which he would feel safe would be some form of foster placement. The summary of the addendum said that the realistic options available to K are limited and it is believed that K's needs can best be met by residing with his family.
A further report has been prepared by Mr Walker for the Parole Board when it reconsiders its position, and that further report is dated 9 November 2006. Mr Walker is apparently under a misapprehension because in paragraph 13 of that report he states his understanding that the Social Services Department of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (VC and Others) and Another v Newcastle City Council Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party)
...that there is, as such, no duty to provide the assessed services. 35 The second point appears from R (K) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 87, para [39], which makes clear that the assessment must address not only the child's immediate, current circumstances......
-
The Queen (on the Application of At, Ag and HG) v London Borough of Islington
...that the assessment must have regard to imminent changes in the circumstances of the child concerned — see Lloyd Jones J in R (K) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin) at paragraph [40]. 19 The recent Supreme Court decision in R (McDonald) v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London ......
-
R (A) v London Borough of Lambeth
...2 FLR 860). The plan should look beyond the immediate needs of the young person and should deal with the imminent needs (see R(K) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin); [2007] 10 CCLR 87). 22 I do not believe that it is necessary to describe the procedural history of this claim......
-
Protecting Rights at the Margins of Youth Justice in England and Wales: Intensive Fostering, Custody and Leaving Custody
...making, see R (on the application of K) v Parole Board [2006] EWHC 2413 and R (on the application of K) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 and for a commentary see Hollingsworth (2007c). 19 For example, whether the child is a child in need or a ‘looked after’ child. And, if looked a......
-
Legal Commentary
...him under the Children Act (CA) 1989 s.17, subject of judicial challenge in R. (on the application of K.) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin) and providing a further illustration of the role of that Act in meeting the needs of young persons returning to the community from cus......
-
Legal Commentary: Accommodation, Services and Support: Local Authority Responsibilities under the Children Act 1989
...assistance after being required to leave her mother’s home. See also K. (R. on the application of ) v Manchester City Council [2006] EWHC 3164 (Admin) which will be addressed in a forthcoming Commentary.2 J.S.’s case was featured in The Guardian (‘Society’) 29 August 2007 and was celebrated......