Re a Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on publication)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2746 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD99C00286 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 27 November 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 2746 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
The President
Case No: FD99C00286
Mr Roger McCarthy QC appeared for the Applicant
Mr Richard Booth (instructed by Radcliffes Le Brasseur) for the First Respondent
Mr Allan Levy QC and Miss Joanna Hall (instructed by Hodge Jones and Allen)for the Second Respondent
Miss Angela Hodes appeared for the Official Solicitor
Hearing dates : 23 rd– 25 th July 2003
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P.
This judgment is being handed down in private on 27 th November 2003. It consists of 31 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P. :
The application before me is an unusual one. The applicant local authority, represented by Mr Roger McCarthy QC, wishes to publish a report (the Report), commissioned by the local Area Child Protection Committee (the ACPC) as a result of care proceedings taken by the local authority in respect of 6 children. The initiation of the care proceedings disclosed matters which the ACPC felt were of sufficient public concern for it to set up an inquiry and invite experienced professionals to investigate and to report. There are objections to the publication of the Report by the principal person involved (Ms A), represented by Mr Allan Levy QC and Miss Joanna Hall, by the Official Solicitor representing several children but more important a group of vulnerable adults, represented by Miss Angela Hodes, and by the NHS Strategic Health Authority represented by Mr Richard Booth. Mr Richard White attended on behalf of an adoption charity, the Agency, and I permitted him informally to make written and oral submissions.
The History
There is a long and complicated history to the background to this application both in relation to the extremely lengthy care proceedings heard over a period of 6 months by Hughes J and to the subsequent inquiry. Ms A, who is now 64, over many years acted as a foster mother to children with particular difficulties, first in London and then in a large property in the country (the Home). She became a most valuable source of help to many local authorities. Most of the children she fostered, she later adopted and she eventually drew under her wing a large family of vulnerable young people, some of whom were adopted by her in their late teens. Most of those she adopted or fostered remained with her after becoming adults. At least two were married there and the children of some residents also lived there. A few vulnerable young people came to live with her when they were already grown up. She collaborated in a book written about her work over many years with these children and young people.
The Home in the country became full of children of all ages and she was assisted by a nursing friend and a mother and daughter and Ms B, who herself suffered from psychiatric problems and was a vulnerable adult. Ms A had rescued her when she was a teenager and allowed her to play a major part in the running of the home. The judgment of Hughes J, handed down in open court on the 23 rd February 2001, sets out in some detail the advantages and disadvantages of the Home and those who managed it.
As a result of investigations into the management of some of the children then living in the Home, on the 26 th November 1998 the police and social services entered the Home of Ms A and removed 12 children and encouraged the vulnerable adults then living there to leave. The local authority then commenced care proceedings in respect of those children but subsequently withdrew them in respect of the 6 eldest. In December 1998 the ACPC commissioned a panel (the Panel) to sit on an inquiry into the management of the Home and to report to them and drafted the terms of reference, which were later amended. For various reasons the Panel did not begin its task until November 1999 and completed it in September 2002. In the care applications running parallel to the inquiry, Hughes J granted injunctions against publicity on the 22 nd February 1999. In the first part of the court proceedings the judge heard evidence from 150 witnesses over seventeen and a half weeks. He gave his first judgment in private on the 16 th March 2000. He found that the threshold criteria under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 had been met and held a further 'disposal' hearing in May 2000 and gave his second judgment in private on the 17 th May. The judgments were however published on the internet by Ms B who was a party to the care proceedings. She later received a suspended sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court.
On the 23 rd February 2001 Hughes J gave the judgment in open court, which was suitably anonymised. He gave his reasons for giving a judgment in public as
a) the very large number of children who had been cared for in the household he had examined,
b) the unusually extensive and expensive investigation which was carried out into it by public authorities,
c) the unusually high public profile which the household and principal adopted for many years,
d) the level of public debate about the household and the investigation in it which was already taking place in the county in which the proceedings arose,
e) the fact that the household was supported significantly by public charitable subscription, and
f) The very large number of people involved in the case as witnesses, many of whom had their conduct called into question, and who otherwise can have no knowledge of its outcome.
Over many years there were in all 13 local authorities involved in asking Ms A to look after their children.
To complete the picture, in October 2002 Coleridge J heard proceedings relating to a child who had been freed for adoption in respect of whom Ms A sought discharge of the freeing order and a residence order. She later withdrew her application for a residence order; the freeing order was discharged and a care order was made to the local authority by consent. At several hearings during 2001 and 2002, Coleridge J heard applications about the welfare of 4 young adults who had previously lived in the household of Ms A and approved that each of them should return to or continue to live with Ms A at the Home.
Confidentiality Orders
On the 23 rd April 1999 Hughes J made the first order allowing disclosure of documents filed in the court proceedings to the ACPC and to the Panel. His order carefully defined the documents to be released to the Panel for the purposes of the inquiry. On the 26 th May 2000 Hughes J made a second order giving more general leave to the local authority to disclose documents requested by the Panel. Further High Court proceedings came before Munby J in relation to the further release of documents. On the 10 th May 2001 Munby J gave permission for certain medical records to be disclosed to the Panel and imposed limitations upon the general use of the medical information. This order was varied on the 22 nd January 2002. In each order it was clear that the disclosure was specific and limited. There have been other orders in relation to disclosure of documents to which it is not necessary for me to refer.
The issue of publication of the Report was then listed before me. It is in two volumes and I gave permission on the 17 th January 2002 to publish Volume 2 to the participating agencies and, I assume, to the Department of Health. Various chapters of Volume 1 were sent to 12 other local authorities involved in the inquiry and to the Agency and to the ACPC committee members. In September 2002 Volume 1 was completed and on the 27 th November 2002 the local authority sought permission from the High Court to publish Volume 1 to everyone. At a preliminary directions hearing on the 14 th January 2003 the local authority and the NHS Trust were present but other interested parties had not been served. I directed that Ms A and the Official Solicitor should be served. I gave further directions on the 29 th January 2003 with all the parties present except Mr White for the Agency. As a result of concerns of the NHS Trust over disclosure of medical records and of Ms A and of the Official Solicitor to the contents of Volume 1, enormous efforts were made during this year by the Panel and the local authority to try further to anonymise it and to meet the objections of the other parties. Despite those efforts they were unable to meet the objections of the Official Solicitor and of Ms A. The local authority now seeks to publish Volume 1 without any further restrictions. Ms A and the Official Solicitor oppose the publication in its entirety. The NHS Hospital Trust is no longer seeking major amendments and can, it appears be satisfied with minor changes. Mr White expressed his concern about those parts of Volume 1 which refer to the Agency.
The Official Solicitor represents both the 6 children who remained the subject of the proceedings and 5 of the 19 vulnerable adults who currently reside at the Home. All of them lived there during part of the period investigated by the Panel. The 5 adults represented by the Official Solicitor all have learning difficulties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re L (Vulnerable Adults with Capacity: Court's Jurisdiction) (No 2)
-
B Borough Council v S and another
...and final injunctive relief in cases based on the inherent jurisdiction (see In re a Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on Publication) [2004] Fam 96 at 124, Re P (Care Orders: Injunctive Relief) [2000] 2 FLR 385, s. 37 Supreme Court Act 1981, Re Z [2004] EWHC 2817 (para 15 onwards – power......
-
Ealing London Borugh Council v KS & Others
...[2003] 1 FLR 292, at para [52]. As Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P said in Re Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2746 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 541, at para [96], in an important passage to which Mr O'Brien appropriately drew "It is a flexible remedy and adaptable to en......
-
E v Channel Four Television Corporation
...to the decision of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P in In re A Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on Publication) [2004] EWHC 2746 (Fam), [2004] Fam 96, at paras [98]–[99] holding that the balance came down in favour of protecting vulnerable adults by preventing publication of a local authori......
-
Legal developments since No Secrets
...a declaration, noting in the judgement of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss LJ in Re A Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2746 (Fam) [2004] Fam 96 of the ‘obvious gap in the framework of care for mentally incapacitated adults’. A series of cases followed where local a......
-
The Vulnerability Jurisdiction: Equity, Parens Patriae, and the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
...report on the grounds that the ensuing media scrutiny would cause upset and stress. 87 Dame Butler-Sloss agreed, 88 noting that, 85. [2003] EWHC 2746 (Fam). 86. Ibid at paras 86-97. 87. Ibid at paras 41-42. 88. Ibid (“[t]hey have now returned to live at the Home. hey have had consideration ......