R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte L
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Local authority – Child protection conference – Local authority’s policy to exclude parents’ solicitors from child protection conference – Local authority’s policy to prevent parents and solicitors from obtaining minutes of conference – Whether policies lawful.
The mother of three children had a history of mental instability. Private care proceedings were commenced in respect of two of the children and interim care orders made. As the local authority’s policy was not to permit the attendance of a solicitor to represent a parent at a child protection conference, the mother’s solicitor wrote to the local authority asking, in the specific context of the case, for their permission to allow him to attend with the mother. The local authority refused that request on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances persuading them to depart from their usual policy. Nevertheless the solicitor attended the conference and was permitted to make representations on behalf of the mother. When he was asked to leave he cited the committee guidelines that permitted the presence of a friend or relative, but upon being told that solicitors could not be regarded as friends, he left. Thereafter the solicitor tried to obtain a copy of the minutes of the meeting, but since the local authority’s position was that as a matter of course neither a parent nor his solicitor was permitted a copy of the minutes other than through an order of the court, he only obtained disclosure by order of the court. The mother applied for judicial review of the decision of the local authority (i) not to allow the presence of her solicitor at the conference, and (ii) not to provide her with a copy of the minutes of the conference, contending that their policies were contrary to the statutory guidance of the Secretary of State contained in a booklet called ‘Working together under The Children Act 1989’, seeking declarations that their conduct was unlawful.
Held – Allowing the application for judicial review and granting the declarations—
(1) A blanket ban on solicitors of the kind operated by the local authority was contrary to the statutory guidance and was unlawful. In general solicitors ought to be allowed to attend and participate unless and until it was felt that they undermined the purpose of the conference by, for example, making it unnecessarily confrontational. Any experienced chair of the conference, who had a discretion as to who should be permitted to attend and for what purpose, should be well able to assess the situation.
(2) The local authority’s position vis-à-vis the minutes of the meeting was ludicrous, and blatantly contravened paras 6.19 and 6.35 of the statutory
guidance, which required that a parent and/or his solicitor should be provided with a copy of the minutes of that part of the meeting that he attended so that, apart from anything else, if a parent or solicitor disagreed with the accuracy of anything that was minuted, he could say so at an early stage. The minutes were no more or less than a record of what occurred at the meeting and it could reasonably be assumed that most people who were furnished with the minutes would behave responsibly. Were there reasons in a particular case to suppose that minutes would be misused it would be open to the chair of the conference to withhold them for specific reasons. It followed that the local authority’s refusal as a matter of course to permit those present to have a copy of the minutes was also unlawful.
Cases referred to in judgmentLaker Airways Ltd v Dept of Trade [1977] QB 643, [1976] 2 All ER 182, [1977] 2 WLR 234, CA.
R v East Sussex CC, ex p R [1990] FCR 873, [1991] 2 FLR 358.
R v Harrow BC, ex p D [1989] FCR 729, [1990] Fam 133, [1989] 3 WLR 1239, [1990] 3 All ER 12, [1990] 1 FLR 79, CA.
R v London Borough of Islington, ex p Rixon (1996) 32 BMLR 136.
ApplicationThe mother applied for judicial review of the decisions of Cornwall County Council in respect of a child protection conference held on 22 January 1999 to consider the welfare of her children (i) not to allow the presence of her solicitor, and (ii) not to provide her with a copy of the minutes. The facts are set out in the judgment of Scott Baker J.
Richard Guy (instructed by Grylls Paige & Exelby) for the applicant.
Elisabeth Laing (instructed by Legal Services, Cornwall County Council) for the respondents.
Cur adv vult
4 November 1999. The following judgment was delivered.
SCOTT BAKER J.Cornwall CC, the respondents, do not as a matter of policy permit the attendance of a solicitor to represent a parent at a child protection conference. Nor, as a matter of policy, do they permit a parent who has attended such a conference to be provided with a copy of the minutes. The applicant seeks judicial review of decisions in respect of a child protection conference held on 22 January 1999 to consider the welfare of her children (i) not to allow the presence of her solicitor, and (ii) not to provide her with a copy of the minutes. It is said that other local authorities take a different view. The present situation has for some time been a matter of concern to solicitors practising family law in Cornwall.
The applicant is the mother of J, K and S. She has a history of mental instability and has had psychiatric care as an in-patient. Private law proceedings
were taken in the Truro County Court in respect of K and S and the local authority were invited to make an investigation under s 37 of the Children Act 1989. Interim care orders were eventually made in respect of K and S on 28 January 1999. The Truro County Court had adjourned on 18 January pending the outcome of the child protection conference on 22 January. Mr Trevor King, a local solicitor and member of the Law Society’s Children Panel represented the applicant in all private and public law matters. He wished to attend the conference and wrote to the county council on 18 January:
‘It is our belief that we should be entitled to be present at this case conference so that we know immediately what has been discussed and are in a position to properly represent our client at the adjourned hearing of this matter on Thursday 28 January. We understand Cornwall County Council operates a policy whereby the parents of children are not entitled to have legal representation at case conferences. We, of course, believe that to be an inappropriate position for the local authority to adopt but nevertheless, specifically seek in the context of this case an agreement by the local authority that we may be permitted to attend with our client even if on this occasion it is only in the guise of an observer.’
The respondents replied on 21 January 1999:
‘I have now been able to take instructions from the senior management of the Social Services Department. As you are aware, it is not Cornwall County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
...Home Dept, R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept[2001] EWCA Civ 1151, [2001] 3 FCR 416, [2001] 1 WLR 2002. R v Cornwall CC, ex p L[2000] 1 FCR 460, [2000] 1 FLR 236. R v Ireland, R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225, [1998] AC 147, [1997] 3 WLR 534, HL. R v Mayor and Burgesses of the Lond......