JR 57’s Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Horner J |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 33 |
| Date | 11 March 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2013 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2013] NIQB 33
Ref:
HOR8751
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
11/03/13
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
JR 57’s Application [2013] NIQB 33
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JR57 FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
_______
HORNER J
INTRODUCTION
[1] This application concerns the sharing of information among various public
bodies and third parties. The information at the centre of this application relates to
the alleged sexual abuse of S by the applicant (“A”), her brother. He denies any
suggestion that he sexually abused his sister, S. He attacks both the Department of
Health and Social Services and Public Safety (“the Department”) for the document
that they have issued, namely Circular HSCC 3/96 revised (hereinafter called “the
Circular”) on which Northern Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust”) has sought
to rely for the way they have dealt with the applicant, a non-adjudicated or
un-adjudicated individual, that is someone who has not been charged or convicted
of any offence involving abuse of children. Furthermore, the applicant attacks the
decision of the Trust to share this information with others, and in particular third
parties.
[2] At the heart of this judicial review lies the problem of how to balance the need
to protect families from any disproportionate interference by the State while at the
same time giving effect to the imperative to protect children from harm. It is a very
difficult balancing exercise as many of these cases demonstrate. The task of the
Social Worker who is in effect holding the scales is:
“usually anxious and often thankless. They are criticised for not having taken action
in response to warning signs which are obvious enough when seen in the clear light
of hindsight. Or they are criticised for making applications based on serious
allegations which, in the event, are not established in court. Sometimes, whatever
2
they do they cannot be right.” See in Re H and Others (Minors) (Sexual Abuse:
Standard of Proof) 1996 AC 563 at 592.
[3] At the outset it is only appropriate that I record my gratitude for the clear
and comprehensive arguments, both written and oral, put forward by the counsel
acting for all of the parties during the extended course of these proceedings.
FACTS
[4] The salient facts giving rise to the present judicial review can be summarised
as follows. A is the brother of S. A is the identical twin of B. They all belong to a
very large family. There are 14 children in the family, eight of them being full
siblings and these include A, B and S. There are six half-siblings. The father of A, B
and S no longer resides with their mother. He has been convicted of sexual abuse.
The mother (“M”) lives with their step-father (“SF”). The family have had and have
very considerable involvement with the Social Services over the years because of,
inter alia, childcare problems.
[5] Since the late summer 2010:
(i) S has been alleging sexual abuse by A from when she was aged six and
A was aged ten. She claims that the abuse continued until she reached
15/16 years. These allegations were relayed to her social worker
sometime at the end of August and the beginning of September 2010.
They are first recorded in a document of 20 September 2010.
(ii) S claims that her sister C witnessed A sexually abusing her.
(iii) S also alleges that A had abused his sister C.
(iv) Both M and SF, their parents, were alleged to have been told about the
abuse when she was 15 or 16 years old, but they dismissed her account
summarily.
(v) S did not, and does not want to make a formal complaint about A’s
sexual abuse to PSNI.
(vi) However S has agreed that Social Services should be able to use the
information as it sees fit.
(vii) The allegations of abuse made by S against A do not record the nature
of the abuse, the approximate dates when the sexual abuse was alleged
to have taken place or where precisely the sexual abuse occurred. Her
allegations do include the claim that the abuse was the most significant
event in her leaving the family home.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
BM1's Application
...on the right to ‘know and respond’ such as Re Henry’s Application [2004] NIQB 11, Re Drummonds Application [2006] NIQB 81 and Re JR57 [2013] NIQB 33.” [52] In particular, Ms Doherty places emphasis on the judgment of Horner J in Re Swann [2014] NIQB 81. [53] In that case the court was consi......
-
FD Limited v MM Limited
...contract.” [18] The position in Northern Ireland is the same. In Sutton Services International Ltd v Vaughan Engineering Services Ltd [2013] NIQB 33 Weatherup J at paragraph [2] stated: “The structure of the adjudication system introduced by the Construction Contracts (Northern Ireland) Ord......