Surrey County Council v Zainab Al-Hilli and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Baker,The Honourable Mr. Justice Baker |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 4394 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD12C00524 & FD12P02113 |
| Date | 06 December 2012 |
| Court | Family Division |
[2012] EWHC 4394 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Baker
Case No: FD12C00524 & FD12P02113
and
and
and
Miss Sarah Morgan QC and Miss Sharon Segal (instructed by Local Authority Solicitor) for the Applicant
Ms Melanie Carew (instructed by CAFCASS) appeared on behalf of the Children's Guardian
Ms Jane DeZonie (instructed by Gordon Dadds LLP) appeared on behalf of the Aunt and Uncle
Miss Amy Clarke appeared on behalf of Surrey Police
Hearing date: 6 th December 2012
The judge hereby gives leave for this judgment to be reported 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.
This is an application by the Chief Constable for Surrey to be joined to care proceedings brought under Part 4 of the Children Act 1989. I am dealing with care proceedings brought by Surrey County Council in respect of Zainab and Zeena Al-Hilli, two girls aged seven and four whose parents and grandmother were tragically murdered whilst on holiday in the French Alps on the 5 th September 2012. The circumstances of the murders have been the subject of worldwide media attention and continue to be the subject of a detailed investigation by the French police. The Surrey Constabulary, responsible for the area where the family lives in this country, are actively involved in that investigation.
Court proceedings were started in this country whilst the girls were still in France and a number of hearings have taken place at which I have made various orders, including a succession of reporting restriction orders, the current order being in place until the 22 nd March 2013 unless varied or extended, and an interim care order placing the girls in the interim care of the Surrey County Council. At present the children are placed under that order with foster parents with a very high degree of police protection.
The principal issue to be determined in these care proceedings will be the future arrangements for the care of the girls. Amongst the matters the Court will have to consider will be whether the girls should remain in the care of the Local Authority or be placed with family members and, if placed with family members, the type of order that should be made to cover that placement. In making those decisions the children's welfare will be the Court's paramount consideration and the Court will have to consider the factors in the so-called welfare checklist in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989. In this case a very important factor to be considered by the Court will be the likelihood of future harm to the girls.
The Surrey Police have already attended most of the interim hearings to date and it is plain that the Court will continue to need the help of the police at all stages in these proceedings. The issues on which their help will be required include (1) information concerning the ongoing police investigations; (2) disclosure of documents within their possession or control that are relevant to future decisions about the children's welfare; and (3) information concerning the specific risks to the children.
By a notice of application dated the 30 th November 2012, the Chief Constable for Surrey applies to be joined as a party to these proceedings. That application is opposed by the Local Authority and the children's guardian. This morning I have heard legal arguments on this issue and I now set out the reasons for my decision.
The arguments in support of the application by the police are succinctly set out in a document attached to the Chief Constable's application. It is said that the application is made for three reasons. First, it is foreseen that the Surrey Police will be required to provide a great deal of information to the Court in respect of the children and their safety. This information is likely to be exceptionally sensitive. It is submitted that joining the Chief Constable will ensure that the flow of information is as smooth as possible. Secondly, the children are currently being protected by the Surrey Police. The Surrey Police therefore have a direct involvement in the current arrangements for their care and have a legitimate interest in discussions in respect of that care. Thirdly, the children are likely to require ongoing police protection. The Court may find it of considerable assistance to receive submissions from the police in respect of the viability of any future order in respect of the children having regard to the need for that protection.
On behalf of the Local Authority, Miss Sarah Morgan QC and Miss Sharon Segal state that the Local Authority is unclear why the police regard party status as necessary as opposed to merely being present and represented at the hearings, as to which the Local Authority not only has no objection but has told the police officers it would actively encourage. They point out that the provision of information will be governed by court directions about which the police will be able to make submissions by attending the hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial