Re F. (Minors) (Wardship: Police Investigation)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE PRESIDENT,LORD JUSTICE NEILL,LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1988 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1988] EWCA Civ J0718-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 88/0623 No. 1987 (WG) 2162 |
| Date | 18 July 1988 |
[1988] EWCA Civ J0718-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
(COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE BOOTH)
Royal Courts of Justice
The President
(Sir Stephen Brown)
Lord Justice Neill
and
Lord Justice Taylor
88/0623
QB/862/88
No. 1987 (WG) 2162
MR. C. GIBBONS (instructed by Messrs. Campion Worsley, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Fifth and Sixth Defendants).
MR. P. GALLAGHER (instructed by Messrs. Robert & Sale, Ilkeston) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Second Defendant).
MISS J. HALL (instructed by Messrs. Lloyd Tucker, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Tenth Defendant).
MR. C. BUTLER (instructed by the Chief Executive and County Solicitor, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
MR. P. JOYCE (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Intervening Party.
MR. A. LEVY (instructed by the Official Solicitor) appeared as Amicus Curiae.
( )
On 5th July 1988, Mrs Justice Booth gave judgment in wardship proceedings at Nottingham. The proceedings had been commenced and pursued by the Nottinghamshire County Council in relation to 17 children who were alleged to be at risk having regard to alleged abuse of a grave character perpetrated upon them by no less than 15 adults.
The adults and the children were all members of what may be described as an extended family and its associates. The nature of the treatment of these children as alleged by the plaintiff authority was horrifying in the extreme. It was alleged that over a considerable period of time these children of varying ages had been subjected to gross sexual abuse at the hands of adults, sometimes at parties where they were subjected to full intercourse in the presence of a number of adults and other children.
There were instances, which the judge heard of and accepted, where practices, which can only be described as satanic, to use her words, had been indulged in. A sheep was killed and its blood was drunk by those present. Children were made to drink it. On one occasion the allegation at such a party, if that be the right term for it, involved one young child's wrist being cut with a Stanley knife, some of the blood from his wrist being put into a silver cup and then the children made to drink it.
I cite those facts to indicate the extreme gravity of the nature of abuse alleged in these wardship proceedings. Not surprisingly, the county council sought care orders under section 7 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 in relation to all the children with the ultimate objective that they should all be adopted into new permanent families.
The learned judge heard oral evidence adduced by the county council over a period of six working days. Evidence both oral together with a very large volume of documentary evidence was adduced before her. At the end of the case presented by the local authority, when in fact all but one of its witnesses had been called with two exceptions, the parents of the various children declined to give evidence themselves. Then all the defendants, of whom there were 15, submitted to the application being granted, that is to say, to the making of care orders in favour of the local authority with a view to the adoption by other families of every one of these 17 children.
The learned judge gave a full judgment of which this court now has a transcript. It extends to some 33 pages. At the end of the hearing the county council indicated that it desired to be in a position to place before the chief constable and the Crown Prosecution Service the matters which had been raised before the wardship court, including, in particular, a transcript of her Ladyship's judgment.
The learned judge indicated to counsel for the plaintiff authority that in her view such an application should properly be made on behalf of the chief constable, and thus it came about that counsel was instructed on behalf of the chief constable to intervene and to make an application that the transcript of her Ladyship's judgment, together with all the documents and other information presented to the court in the case including the documents and other relevant information in the possession of the local authority, should be made available to the chief constable, the appropriate officers under his command, and to the Crown Prosecution Service.
That application was resisted by a number of the defendants. The submission was made that because wardship proceedings were held in private and that it was an important feature of such proceedings that there should be conditions in which complete frankness could be encouraged on the part of witnesses it would be inappropriate and indeed wrong for the learned judge to grant the application.
The learned judge heard argument about it. This court has a transcript of the submissions made by counsel and the short extempore judgment which was delivered by the learned judge. She said: "This is a wholly exceptional case. In the normal course of events, the wardship court guards, and guards jealously, the information that is placed before it. It is wholly confidential, and that I made clear at the beginning of this hearing when I refused a suggestion that a Police Officer should attend to hear the evidence."
I pause there to interpolate that at the outset of the proceedings a suggestion had been made that a police officer should be allowed to sit in on the hearing and to hear the evidence given in the wardship proceedings. The learned judge declined on the grounds that it would be inappropriate and would conflict with the interests of all concerned in the proceedings that frankness should be encouraged.
The learned judge continued: "This is, as I have already said, an extremely serious case. It involves the gravest possible abuse not only of the children who are wards of this court, but in all probability other children who are outside the protection of this court. I have to weigh the preservation of confidentiality and the interests of the wards with whom I am dealing, against the public interest that other children too are entitled to as much protection as these wards receive, and that it is in the public interest that those who are found guilty of abuse should be brought to book, and that nothing should be put in the way of the course of justice in that respect.
"In the circumstances of this case only two of the parents have elected to give evidence, making any admissions at all."She then named them. "They have given evidence to the police already. All the other parents have denied their involvement in abusing the children, and I have made findings in which I have rejected the assertions made by the parents. They have in their affidavits said nothing which seems to me to prejudice their position if the Police are allowed access to those affidavits.
"On the wider view of things, I take the view that the greater public interest in the circumstances of this case is that now the Police should have at their disposal all the documents and all the information that has been before this court in order that it may take such steps as may be necessary to protect other children outside this wardship court.
"In the circumstances of this case—it is not a general rule for all time—I propose to give leave to the Local Authority to disclose to the Criminal Prosecution Service not only a transcript of my judgment but also all the documents and information in their possession relating to the wards of court and these wardship proceedings."She then made the order.
Counsel on behalf of two of the defendants immediately applied for a stay of execution and for leave to appeal to this court. Her Ladyship granted leave to appeal and granted a stay of execution for seven days in order that the appeal could be pursued.
Mr. Gibbons has appeared on behalf of two of the defendants and today other counsel have appeared on behalf of two other defendants to whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re M (A Minor) (Wardship Documents: Disclosure)
...[1990] Ch 662; [1990] 2 All ER 155; sub nom B v M (Welfare Report: Disclosure) [1990] FCR 581. F (Minors) (Police Investigation), Re [1989] Fam 18. F (orse A) (A Minor) (Publication of Information), Re [1977] Fam 58; [1977] 3 All ER F v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [1991] Fam 69. R (......
-
Brown v Matthews
...by the decision of Rees J. in Re. R (A Minor) Publication of Transcript (1975) Fam 89, which was approved by this Court in Re. F. (1989) Fam 18. The question of disclosure was raised before Rees J. with reference to the evidence of the parties given in wardship and adoption proceedings, and......
-
Re G (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure)
...Re[1992] 1 FCR 297. D v NSPCC [1978] AC 171; [1976] 3 WLR 124; [1976] 2 All ER 993. F (A Minor) and Others, Re [1989] FCR 249; [1989] Fam 18; [1988] 3 WLR 818. F (orse A), Re [1977] Fam 58; [1976] 3 WLR 307; [1976] 3 All ER 274. K (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re[1994] 2 FCR 805;......
-
Oxfordshire County Council v L and F
...Disclosure), Re[1992] 1 FCR 297. F (A Minor) and Others, Re [1989] FCR 249; sub nom Re F (Minors) (Wardship: Police Investigation) [1989] Fam 18; [1988] 3 WLR 818. F (Otherwise A) (A Minor) (Publication of Information), Re [1977] Fam 58; [1976] 3 WLR 818; [1977] 1 All ER 114. G (Care Procee......