Sutton London Borough Council v Davis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1994 |
| Date | 16 March 1994 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family Division
Before Mr Justice Wilson
Children - registration of childminder - local authority policy against smacking - jurisdiction of justices
Justices were entitled to conclude that a childminder was not unfit to look after children despite her refusal to agree to the policy of the local authority and undertake not to smack children in her care.
Mr Justice Wilson so held in the Family Division in a reserved judgment dismissing the London Borough of Sutton's appeal against the decision of Sutton Justices on July 8, 1993 to allow Anne Hilary Davis's appeal under section 77(6) of the Children Act 1989 against the local authority's refusal to register her as a childminder.
Mr James Munby, QC and Miss Caroline Rodger for the council; Mr James Holman, QC and Mr Howard Shaw for Mrs Davis.
MR JUSTICE WILSON said that the local authority had concluded that Mrs Davis was not fit to look after children under the age of eight and had exercised the power given to them under section 71(7)(a) of the 1989 Act to refuse to enter her name upon their register of childminders.
In 1992 the local authority had adopted the policy that an applicant who declined to undertake not to smack a child being minded would automatically be considered not fit for the purposes of section 71 and would be refused registration. It seemed that the same policy had been adopted by a great majority of other local authorities.
The local authority accepted that it was only the refusal of Mrs Davis to give the undertaking about smacking that led them, in accordance with their policy, to refuse registration. They conceded that in all other aspects Mrs Davis met their criteria well.
In reaching their policy about no smacking and in arguing their case the local authority had placed great reliance upon the so-called blue book (Volume 2 of The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations issued by the Department of Health in 1991 under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970) which provided, in paragraph 6.22: "Corporal punishment (smacking, slapping or shaking) is illegal in maintained schools and should not be used by any other parties within the scope of this guidance". It was clear that childminders were within the scope of that guidance and that the local authority had had a duty to act under it.
What was abundantly clear was that the guidance in the blue book, whether in relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Grant
...aside and the matter remitted to the family proceedings court to be heard by a differently constituted bench; Sutton London BC v Davis[1994] 2 FCR 1129 and R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 All E......
-
Sutton London Borough Council v Davis (No. 2)
...London Borough Council v H[1992] 2 FCR 299; [1993] Fam 43; [1992] 3 WLR 521; [1993] 1 All ER 198. Sutton London Borough Council v Davis[1994] 2 FCR 1129. James Munby, QC and Caroline Rodger for the local James Holman, QC and Howard Shaw for the applicant. Charles Utley for the Legal Aid Boa......
-
K v K and Another (Legal aid: Costs)
...[1992] 1 All ER 267. Povey v Povey [1972] Fam 40; [1971] 2 WLR 381; [1970] 3 All ER 612. Sutton LBC v Davis (No 2)[1994] 2 FCR 1199; [1994] 2 WLR 721. Andrew Nicol for the John Gimlette for the Legal Aid Board. MR JUSTICE WILSON.This is an appeal by a wife from an order made on 14 January 1......
- Re R (Costs: Contact Enforcement)