Re TB (Care Proceedings: Criminal Trial)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS,LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Civ J0622-7 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | NO:95/0831/F |
[1995] EWCA Civ J0622-7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM: CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Peppit)
Before: Lord Justice Butler-Sloss and Lord Justice Aldous
NO:95/0831/F
MISS S QUINN (instructed by Harman & Harman, 10 Station Road West, Canterbury, Kent) appeared on behalf of the Local Authority and Guardian Ad Litem.
MISS P CAVE (instructed by Messrs Bradleys, Castle Street, Dover) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Parents.
Thursday, 22nd June 1995
.
This is an appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Peppitt QC in the Canterbury County Court on 1st June 1995 when he ordered that the hearing of care proceedings which had been listed for 11th September 1995 be vacated so that the criminal trial of the mother and step-father may take place first with the care proceedings being relisted for hearing on the first open date in December 1995, which is likely to be 4th December.
The background to this case is that there are four children, "C" born in 1990, "M" born in 1991, "Z" born in 1993 and "P" born in May 1995. I give a direction that there should be no identification of any of the children, or any members of family, that might lead to the identification of them.
The two elder children, "C" and "M", are the children of the mother and the father is the step-father, who is the natural father of the two younger children. So far as he is concerned, there is a long history of problems with children of his previous relationships, all of whom have gone into care, and some at least of whom have been adopted. That is a relevant factor for civil proceedings, though not for criminal.
There have been very major concerns about "M", who has been seen, rather late, in a very poor state of health. The medical and social evidence of the physical and mental sate of "M", before he was taken with his two sisters into care in February 1995, is probably as serious as that sort of case could be; he is now said to be extremely disturbed. His mother and step-father are charged with criminal neglect in respect of him and are due to be committed for trial on 17th July. It is hoped that the trial will be heard in Canterbury some time before the end of 1995.
"C" is also the subject of potential child neglect proceedings in the criminal courts. Those charges have not yet been preferred but will be on 17th July and it is expected that the mother and step-father will be committed for trial in respect of "C" as well as "M", no doubt to come on on the same day, again it is hoped some time before the end of 1995.
There is a Home Office circular that deals with any delay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal trial so that the criminal court shall be notified of the importance of bringing on that criminal trial as quickly as possible.
On 1st June, the circuit judge sitting in the care proceedings in the Canterbury County Court was faced with an extremely difficult problem, and one cannot but have the greatest possible sympathy with him, faced, as he was, with an application that the care proceedings should be delayed so that there should be an outcome to the criminal proceedings first. In an ideal world that is what should happen, but as we all know, we do not live in an ideal world. The three elder children have been in care since February. The judge was well aware, as indeed is now in statute form in section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989, that delay is detrimental to children. The judge, in considering whether to adjourn the care proceedings as requested for the outcome of the criminal proceedings undoubtedly had the question of delay well in mind. He made an order which adjourned the care proceedings from September until December; in the scale of adults, a short period; in the scale of children, as Miss Quinn, in her admirable submissions to us on behalf of the Guardian Ad Litem, who is the appellant from the judge's decision, says, is another three months in the time scale of young children, who have very specific needs. The judge felt that there was a good chance that the trial would be heard before December, but that in any event, come what may, the civil proceedings were to be heard. In adjourning from 11th September to 4th December, he was undoubtedly taking a gamble that the criminal proceedings would not be held up, taking in particular the risk that he might be faced on 4th December with exactly the same situation and 3 months had gone by.
He was reminded of three decisions on the question of the criminal trial and civil proceedings and how a care court should deal with the pending criminal proceedings. Two are in 1988, both applications for judicial review from decisions of the Magistrates not to adjourn the care proceedings until the criminal trial had been heard. The first was R v Inner London Juvenile Court ex-parte G [1988] 2 FLR 58 before Bush J in the Queens Bench Division. In that case there were sexual abuse allegations made by a girl in respect of her father and the Magistrates refused to adjourn the care proceedings for the outcome of a criminal trial on the basis that the child should not be subjected to further stress or delay. On the application for judicial review, Bush J took the view that the Magistrates must perform a balancing exercise of a judicial nature, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including any risk to the child and any risk of prejudice to an accused. It was particularly important in cases concerning children that there should be as little delay as possible in reaching decisions on their future. Bush J felt that the Magistrates had not erred in principle within the ambit of judicial review and refused to interfere with their decision.
That decision was followed by the President of the Family Division hearing an application for judicial review, in R v Exeter Juvenile Court ex-party H and H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W (Children)
...that were not clear enough, the judgment of Butler-Sloss LJ (as she then was) giving the leading judgment in this court in Re TB (Care Proceedings: Criminal Trial) [1995] 2 FLR 801 makes it clear beyond peradventure that the starting point is that the existence of criminal proceedings is n......
-
R v L
...of such proceedings, the position has changed. The current practice is summarised in the judgment of Butler-Sloss LJ, in re TB (Care Proceedings; Criminal Trial) [1995] 2 FLR 801. "One starts with the fact that the criminal proceedings of themselves are not a reason to adjourn the care pro......
-
SW and another v Portsmouth City Council and Others; Re W (children) (concurrent care and criminal proceedings)
...the course taken by the judge. The exercise of his discretion could not be criticised; Re TB (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Criminal Trial)[1996] 1 FCR 101 Per curiam. Although the recently updated Practice Direction (residence and contact orders: domestic violence and harm)[2009] 1 FCR 223 [c......
-
R v L
...(a firm) [1996] 2 All ER 353, [1996] 1 WLR 763, CA. Stephenson v Garnett [1898] 1 QB 677, CA. TB (care proceedings: criminal trial), Re[1996] 1 FCR 101, [1995] 2 FLR 801, AppealThe defendant, Stephen L, appealed against the decision of Beatson J and a jury whereby, inter alia, he was convic......