SL v Pembrokeshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE FIELD,Mr. Justice Field |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1029 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Claim No: 5MT00758 |
| Date | 11 May 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1029 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SWANSEA DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
2 Park Street
Cardiff
South Wales
CF10 1ET
Mr. Justice Field
Claim No: 5MT00758
Mr. Robert Weir (instructed by Hugh James) for the Claimant
Mr. Alastair Hammerton (instructed by Dolmans) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 7 th April 2006
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.
This is an application by the defendants, Pembrokeshire County Council ("PCC"), to strike out the claimant's claim in negligence, alternatively for summary judgement under CPR 24.2 in respect of that claim.
The claimant is Mrs. Stephanie Lawrence. She sues both in negligence and under ss. 6 and 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") for breach of Article 8 ECHR in respect of the way social workers employed by PCC dealt with her and her four children, Victoria, Daniel, Benjamin and William. In particular, she claims that her children's names ought never to have been placed on the Child Protection Register and as a consequence of the way she and the children were treated she has suffered psychiatric injury.
For the purposes of this application all of Mrs. Lawrence's pleaded allegations of fact must be presumed to have been proved even though many are denied by PCC.
PCC's social services became involved with Mrs. Lawrence and her family in 1999 after a clinical psychologist carried out an assessment of Benjamin who was having toileting difficulties. The psychologist referred Mrs. Lawrence's family to PCC's Child Protection Team expressing concerns about the safety of Mrs. Lawrence and her children. However, at an ensuing strategy meeting held without Mrs. Lawrence's knowledge on 20 March 2001 it was determined that there were no child protection issues and that Mrs. Lawrence's family should receive a "plan of support".
PCC assigned a Community Support Nurse to Mrs. Lawrence but when the nurse left she was replaced by A, who was neither a qualified social worker, nor specially trained and was without any expertise in toilet training.
By early March 2002 PCC social workers had become concerned that Mrs. Lawrence was at risk of violence from the father of the children and Mrs. Lawrence told A that occasionally she disciplined the children by threatening them with a wooden spoon.
On 13 March 2002 at a meeting attended by Mrs. Lawrence, the father of the children, A, the clinical psychologist and a community support nurse, the father (who no longer lived with the family) falsely alleged that Mrs. Lawrence had once hit him with the wooden spoon. Later that day, A and another PCC social worker, B, arrived unexpectedly at Mrs. Lawrence's shop and wrongly accused her in front of one of her children of striking another of the children with a wooden spoon. B's manner was hectoring and intimidating. The social workers wanted to interview the children at school before they had a chance to speak to their mother. Mrs. Lawrence objected and it was agreed that she would meet the social workers at the school at picking up time. When the four children came out of school the social workers wanted to put them in the three seats in the back of their car thereby keeping them separate from their mother. Mrs. Lawrence intervened and drove the children herself to a specified address where they were interviewed by the social workers in the company of the police. Mrs. Lawrence was separately interviewed by a senior social worker, F, in the course of which she said that the father had inadvertently hit one of the children during an argument with her earlier in the month.
On 17 April 2002 a Child Protection Conference ("a CPC") took place. It was chaired by H, manager of PCC's Child Protection Co-ordination and Quality Assurance. H had earlier agreed with Mrs. Lawrence that the CPC would have a two-tier format and Mrs. Lawrence would have the opportunity of speaking initially without the father being present. However, the CPC was not conducted with a two-tier format and when Mrs. Lawrence and the father tried to intervene to correct inaccuracies and to present their views they were repeatedly told to be quiet or they would be removed from the meeting. Mrs. Lawrence found the CPC an intimidating experience for which she had not been adequately prepared. She received C's report the day before the CPC and the psychologist's report just 5 minutes before the conference started.
In his report and at the CPC, C discounted the danger of physical harm to the children and those attending were all satisfied that there was no concern about physical harm to the children. However, it was decided that the children's names should be placed on the Child Protection Register ("the "at risk register"") under the category of "emotional harm" and C was named as the key worker. The CPC took this decision without any mention being made at the conference of the strategy meeting held on 20 March 2001 and despite the fact that no fresh evidence since that strategy meeting regarding the risk of emotional abuse was disclosed at the CPC.
A first review CPC chaired by officer H was held on 8 July 2002. It was decided at this conference that the children's names should be kept on the "at risk" register and that a core assessment should be carried out. This decision was taken notwithstanding there had been no contact between social workers and the children since the initial CPC other than one short visit by a key worker. Further, Mrs. Lawrence was only shown the social worker's report moments before the CPC started and she and the father were excluded from part of the meeting.
A second CPC review was held on 29 October 2002. Again the chair of the conference was officer H. The actions prescribed by the first review CPC had not been carried out. There had been no monthly meetings with the key worker, no core assessments, only 2 core group meetings, no visits by social workers and no provision to Mrs. Lawrence by C of relevant sections of the Child Protection Procedures. Mrs. Lawrence and the father were shown the reports for the conference just five minutes before the meeting started. Officer D (C's team manager) recommended that the children's names be removed from the register and a Child in Need plan be put in place. Mrs. Lawrence objected to further involvement by PCC in her family life. On 24 August 2002 a formal complaint she had made in April 2002 about PCC's failure to follow procedures leading up to the initial CPC and about the attitudes of officers B and F had been substantially upheld at the stage 3 level after having been rejected at stage 1 and upheld at stage 2. And on 2 September 2002, Mrs. Lawrence had raised a second formal complaint, this time against H, in which she also sought to appeal the decision of the initial CPC.
In light of Mrs. Lawrence's refusal any longer to cooperate with social services, it was decided by the second review CPC that the children's names should remain on the "at risk" register.
In December 2002 Mrs. Lawrence's second complaint was broadened to include the second review CPC. This complaint was investigated by an independent expert who on 2 June 2003 produced a report in which he said, inter alia, that the evidence did not justify placing the children's names on the register and social workers had misused the initial CPC and misled the chair in an attempt to "get their own way".
A third review CPC was held on 4 June 2003, this time chaired by an-out-of-county chairman. At this conference it was resolved that the children's names should be removed from the "at risk register" and this step was subsequently taken.
On 13 November 2003 a stage 3 review panel upheld Mrs. Lawrence's second complaint, finding, inter alia, that no support or information had been given before the review CPCs; the CPC chair had failed to ensure that Mrs. Lawrence and the father had been given access to the reports before their submission to the review CPCs; Mrs. Lawrence had not been allowed sufficiently to challenge critical inaccuracies; and the chair, H, had accepted that had she been aware of the strategy meeting held in March 2001, she would have adjourned the first CPC.
Mrs. Lawrence complained to the Ombudsman on 8 March 2003. He produced his report in December 2004. He found that the failure to raise or take into account the March 2001 strategy meeting at the first CPC amounted to maladministration and concluded that had the faults leading to and occurring at the initial CPC not occurred, then on the balance of probabilities that CPC would not have taken the decision to place the children's names on the "at risk register". He also found that the decision to keep the children on the register at the second review CPC was procedurally flawed and unreasonable because it was based not on any perception of real risk to the children but on Mrs. Lawrence's alleged failure to cooperate with input from social care. He further concluded that there was maladministration in failing to follow the All Wales Child Protection Procedures at the first and second review CPCs: Mrs. Lawrence should have had the opportunity to consider the reports at least 24 hours prior to the first review CPC; Mrs. Lawrence and the father should not have been excluded from any part of the initial review CPC; and H should have been replaced as chair at the second review CPC.
The Ombudsman recommended that PCC should pay Mrs. Lawrence £5000 in recognition of her distress and damage to her reputation and of her time and trouble in pursuing her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephanie Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council
...Accordingly, the appeal would be dismissed; D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust[2005] 2 FCR 81 followed. Decision of Field J [2006] 2 FCR 363 affirmed. Cases referred to in judgmentsB v A-G of New Zealand[2003] UKPC 61, [2003] 4 All ER 833. Barrett v Enfield London BC[1999] 2 FCR ......
-
B v Reading BC
... ... Between B Claimant/Respondent and (1) Reading Borough Council (2) Wokingham District Council First and Second Defendants/Appellants ... is the successor in title to the relevant local authority at the time, which was Berkshire County Council ('Berkshire'), which no longer exists. In these circumstances it is convenient to describe ... , in the light of the decision in D and of the decision of this court in Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council [2007] EWCA Civ 446 permission to appeal would be most unlikely to be granted and ... ...
-
X v Hounslow London Borough Council
... ... in D in this court and on further appeal to the House of Lords, reported at [2005] UKHL 23 , [2005] 2 AC 373 , and in Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council [2007] 1 WLR 2991 that no separate duty of care was owed to the adult parents did not lead to a different conclusion because the ... ...
-
L and another v Reading Borough Council and Others
...[2006] EWCA Civ 1– in a passage which was quoted in one of the authorities cited to me, Lawrence v Pembrokeshire County Council [2006] EWHC 1029 (QB) at [25] – Wall LJ said at [30]: "… it would, in my judgment, be both highly artificial and unprincipled if the protection afforded to social ......