Re S (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Local Authority Response)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 334 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2378/2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 04 May 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 334 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Scott Baker
Case No: CO/2378/2000
Ms Cherie Booth QC and Mr Angus Halden (instructed by Cartwrights Solicitors for the Claimant)
Mr Roger McCarthy QC (instructed by The Swindon Borough Council and Wiltshire County Council for the Defendants)
The Claimant is a consultant gynaecologist who was acquitted in the Crown Court in November 1999 of sexually abusing the daughter of the woman with whom he was living. He has, however, been unable to put the allegations behind him. His private and family life have been disrupted. His case is that the two Defendants still see him as a child abuser, or at any rate as a risk, to children. He seeks judicial review of decisions taken by the First Defendants set out in a letter of 26 April 2000 and of the Second Defendants in a letter of 5 May 2000. In essence his claim is that each of the Defendants has wrongly applied its statutory duties.
Factual background
The Claimant lives with the three children of his first marriage, two boys and a girl, now aged between 18 and 13. His first wife, their mother, died in 1990. His second marriage was a short duration and ended in 1994. His son from that marriage lives with his mother. In October 1996 the Claimant met the mother of a girl who has been referred to throughout as K. A relationship developed between the Claimant and K's Mother. K was born on 4 October 1987. On 8 January 1999 the Claimant was arrested and charged with having indecently assaulted K on seven occasions over the previous 18 months. She made the disclosure to her mother a few days before the Claimant was arrested. He was tried at Bristol Crown Court before Judge Hagen and a jury in November 1999. On four of the seven charges he was acquitted; on the other three the jury was unable to agree. The judge told the prosecution she did not think, in all the circumstances, a retrial was appropriate and the prosecution decided not to proceed with a retrial. The Claimant was then formally found not guilty of the remaining three offences.
In the meantime the Claimant formed a relationship with a Mrs Jenkinson. She has two daughters aged 11 and 7 and is a former patient of the Claimant. She lives in the Second Defendants' area. Their desire is to set up house together and for the Claimant's three and Mrs Jenkinson's two children to live with them. Thus far they have held back from doing so because of the Claimant's differences with social services.
On 29 November 1999 the Claimant's solicitors wrote to the First Defendants asking what social services intended to do and if there was to be a case conference could it be arranged speedily because the Claimant wanted to build a new life and put the stress and trauma behind him. On 1 December 1999 a high risk protocol meeting was held at which a number of people were present including representatives of the First Defendants. It was noted that Mr Jenkinson had approached Wiltshire Social Services expressing concern at his children having contact with the Claimant and that he was seeking a residence order to prevent contact. The risk to the Claimant's own children had been assessed as low but not non-existent. It was felt he could present a higher risk to other children and that if he was known to be having significant contact with other children a local authority would have an obligation to assess what risk, if any, he presented to those children. Each situation would need to be considered individually and legal advice obtained prior to any information being shared. The First Defendants would wish to share the information they held with the Second Defendants in the light of Mr Jenkinson's approach. The following action plan was agreed:
i) No child protection conference with regard to the Claimant's own children;
ii) Further support and advice to be offered to the Claimant's family on risk reduction;
iii) Information to be shared with the Second Defendants;
iv) If any other child is found to be having significant contact with the Claimant, the local authority would assess what risk if any he presented to the child;
v) No information to be shared with other agencies or family members without prior discussion with the legal department.
On 22 December 1999 the First Defendants wrote to the Claimant's solicitors saying:
“The Social Services Department's view is that the Mr Schlesinger's children would be at a low level of risk in all circumstances and therefore has decided it will not hold a case conference on his children. The Department would be willing to continue working with the family if Mr Schlesinger was willing to continue such work. The Department does feel that there would be a higher level of risk to a child who is not a child of Mr Schlesinger if they were to live in the same household as him or have unsupervised contact with him particularly if that child, or the child's parents, were not aware of the allegations against him. The relevant Social Services Department would have to assess the level of risk in the particular circumstances and take any appropriate action.”
On 11 January 2000 the Claimant's solicitors wrote to the First Defendants asking for a meeting because “the social services decision has very far reaching implications” for the Claimant and he “cannot allow the situation to continue as it is.” There was an affirmative response on 13 January 2000 and the meeting duly took place on 4 February 2000. The Claimant was invited to put forward any issues he wished social services to take into account when assessing any risks he might pose. The meeting concluded with a number of questions left for the Defendants. These included:
i) A request to look at the evidence in its entirety;
ii) What would happen if the Claimant proceeded with his relationship with Mrs Jenkinson?
iii) What was the First Defendants' view about contact between the Claimant's children and their friends?
iv) Has the Claimant's acquittal been taken into account?
v) Have the Defendants passed on any information and if so what?
On 17 February 2000 the First Defendants answered most of the questions, promising a final view on question (iii) when they had considered any further representations. The answer to question (i) was that they had looked at the whole of the evidence in the past and would continue to do so. As to question (iv), the acquittal had been taken into account. As to dissemination of information, the assessment reports and the reports of Doctor Roberts (an expert instructed by the First Defendants – both of his reports predated the trial) had been provided to the health authority and the police and also to Wooton Bassett social services, but no one else. Wooton Bassett is the area in which the Jenkinsons reside.
Also on 17 February 2000 the Second Defendants responded saying they would take account of any information they either already had or received. They said they intended to make their decision having in mind the matters which had so far been raised and to take into account a transcript of K's evidence and of the judge's summing up. They asked for any further representations to be in writing in 21 days.
The correspondence that followed illustrated the Claimant's continuing concern that it was necessary to have a full transcript of the trial to form an informed and objective view of the situation. It was also made clear by the Claimant that Mrs Jenkinson had seen all the documents and reports that he had seen and that she had full knowledge of the allegations made against him.
The First Defendant's decision letter is dated 26 April 2000 and it is necessary to look at it in a little detail. The letter begins by regretting the delay in reaching a decision and pointing out that this has been caused by a desire to subject K's allegations to careful scrutiny, taking into account points that emerged at the trial. A transcript of K's evidence and of the summing up had been obtained. The letter went on to pose the two outstanding questions, namely whether the Claimant's children could have friends to stay without interference and whether he could set up home with Mrs Jenkinson and her children. The letter then made the following points:
• That social services felt K's allegations were highly credible and to be believed.
• There was therefore a need to consider and deal with the prospect of the Claimant interfering with other children and take any necessary steps to protect those children.
• Any steps should only be taken if they are really necessary.
• An attempt should be made at all times to limit any interference in the Claimant's life to what is reasonably necessary.
• The previous decision that no action was planned in relation to the Claimant's own children remained in place.
On the question of the children having friends to stay, the First Defendants' position was that whether any action was necessary depended on the circumstances. If a child was having a substantial level of unsupervised contact in the household, the department would consider what action, if any, to take under its normal child protection procedures and would also decide what information to reveal to the child or its parents on the basis of whether there was a pressing need to do so.
The letter went on to point out that the First Defendants had no jurisdiction over any decision of the Claimant to set up house with another woman, but that the question of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cambridgeshire County Council v PS and Others
...and found to the civil standard (see, for example Oldham MBC v GW & PW [2007] EWHC 136 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 597 and Re S (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Local Authority Response) [2001] EWHC Admin 334, [2001] 2 FLR 776 per Scott-Baker J at [34] and [35]). That is the function of the court not a ......
-
Re W (A Child) (non-accidental injury: expert evidence); sub nom Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v GW and PW
...based upon nor results in a conclusion on the balance of probabilities: Re S (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Local Authority Response) [2001] EWHC Admin 334, [2001] 2 FLR 776 per Scott Baker J. The task of determining facts to a standard of proof is for the court (see also Dingley v. Chief Cons......
-
R v Lancashire County Council
...and their Families TSO (2000) is neither based upon nor results in a conclusion on the balance of probabilities: Re S (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Local Authority Response) [2001] EWHC Admin 334, [2001] 2 FLR 776 per Scott Baker J. The task of determining facts to a standard of proof is for t......
-
Care Standards Tribunal, 2002-12-12 (Irene & Frank Hayward v National Assembly for Wales)
...the evidence which was available to them.’ We were referred to the case of Re S (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Local Authority Response) (2001) EWHC Admin 334. [2001] 2FLR 776. This was a judicial review of the exercise of the local authority’s powers under s 47 of the Children Act 1989. The cl......