A v London Borough of Enfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Hayden |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/5606/2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 March 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 567 (Admin)
Mr Justice Hayden
Case No: CO/5606/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms. GrainneMellon (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr. Michael Paget (instructed by Enfield Council Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18 th February 2016
BACKGROUND
The Claimant (C) is a British teenage girl who was born and grew up in the London Borough of Enfield. She is now aged 18 years. On 29 th July 2014 C first came to the attention of the Defendant when her sister telephoned the Childrens Services Department to communicate her anxiety that C was planning to leave the country. The information recorded at that time noted that C had left her family home in February 2014 without the consent of her family and travelled through Turkey to the Syrian border.
C contacted her father from Turkey to come and collect her, apparently having had a change of heart about her plans. It is clear that C travelled to Turkey alone. Prior to her flight she is reported to have been following a number of local Muslim girls on the internet. She met an adult man, online, called Umar who lived in Turkey and he had encouraged her to runaway from home. C's father responded to his daughter's call and she was taken by her parents to stay with extended family in Pakistan.
C was detained on her return to Heathrow by Counter-Terrorism Police and questioned by the UKBA. Though both her parents were at the airport she refused to return home with them and stayed initially at a hotel in Newham. C's sister told the police that C wanted to leave the country again explaining that she had somehow applied for and obtained a replacement passport, her original passport having been removed from her.
When the police spoke to C she reported being unhappy at her family home explaining that she disliked her family and had done so 'for a long time'. She professed to want to live somewhere where she felt more 'accepted'. By this, it is clear from the documentation in the case, she meant that she wanted to live in an environment that was observant to stricter Islamic codes of behaviour. She said that she had applied for another passport because her family had taken hers from her. C said that she went to visit people in Turkey whom she had met on Twitter. She said she wanted to join their group, she felt happy there. The family told the police that they were afraid that C might try and leave again, possibly being influenced by the same people who they (the family) considered were involved 'in what was happening in Syria at present'.
The police told the family that they could not force C to hand over the passport or 'lock her up' so that she could not leave the house. All appear to agree that the police said they could not take the passport. In fact, that is misconceived, though it matters not in this application.
C was described as 'an A- star student', but she was at this stage expressing no inclination to study at 6 th Form. At this period the police assessed C as suitable for the Channel Programme. This programme is an early intervention multi-agency process designed to safeguard vulnerable people from being drawn into violent extremist or terrorist behaviour. Channel works in a similar way to existing safeguarding partnerships aimed at protecting vulnerable people. It is designed to work with individuals of any age who are at risk of being exploited by extremist or terrorist ideologues. The process is intended to be structured around the individual circumstances of each person and aims to provide support for any form of radicalisation or personal vulnerabilities to extremist influence. Guidance on the objectives and scope of the Channel Programme is published by the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Unit and now widely available.
C initially engaged with the project but quickly drifted away. This appears to have been in the period between March and May 2014. I emphasise that none of this factual information is contentious between the parties.
I should also make clear that much of this information is derived from a Child and Family Assessment which was undertaken by the Defendant between the 29 th July 2014 and the 8 th August 2014. It seems fairly clear, indeed I do not think it is disputed, that C was kept under very close supervision by her parents and her freedom of movement very significantly curtailed.
C told the social workers that she would not place herself at risk again and had not appreciated on her previous trip to Turkey that her friends had planned to take her to the Syrian border. C asserted that she wanted to go to Egypt to study, she said that in Egypt there was 'one of the best Islamic schools' and that she would like to study there. She stated that her parents would resist this and so she hoped to marry a man who already studied and lived in Egypt.
C was, however, prepared to negotiate with her parents. She stated that if they had indicated that she could marry she would not runaway. The situation was obviously fraught and on the 29 th August 2014 C left the family home making allegations that her father had hit and pulled her in the course of an argument. On the 19 th September C travelled to Egypt alone. Upon leaving her parents' home, C stayed with her maternal aunt RB in Enfield for a number of weeks. The maternal aunt plainly struggled to manage to care for C and eventually asked her to leave the property as she was 'finding it difficult to manage the relationship' between C and her parents. C then stayed with her maternal grandmother, who also lives in Enfield.
On 18 th September 2015, C's mother notified the police that C was planning to leave the country. On 19 th September 2015, C left the country and travelled to Egypt alone. She stayed there for a week. C's parents reported this to the police and she was contacted by the British Embassy in Egypt. C indicated to them that an adult friend had bought her the ticket to travel. Fearing that her family may try to follow her to Egypt, C left and travelled to Greece, alone, where she stayed for 9 days. C's aunt and father flew to Greece, whereupon it appears to have been agreed by the father that C should travel to Bulgaria alone, where she stayed for a further 6 weeks.
C returned to Heathrow airport on 21st November 2014 where she was, on arrival, detained by Counter-Terrorism police and questioned by UKBA. Her parents were at the airport but C refused to return home with them.
The Defendant took the view, whilst C was abroad that '[C] is no longer in the country therefore there is no further role for Enfield Children Services at this stage unless there are [sic] other action from outcome of the strategy meeting' this is again recorded in the Child and Family Assessment on the 8 th August 2014. The case note report shows that C's father asked if the Children Services could provide his daughter with a flat of her own so that she could be kept safe. By this stage C, who had already spent the previous night with her father and the family, were told that a flat of her own was not something social care could provide. C told the social services that the difficulty with her parents was that 'they were not strict enough Muslims'. In her Skeleton Argument Ms. Mellon on behalf of C characterises the Local Authority's refusal in these terms:
"It does not appear that this assertion was based on any assessment of the Claimant's needs but instead is based on the erroneous understanding which has characterised the Defendant's decision-making in this case: that they do not have the power to accommodate 16 and 17 year old children. In any event, it is widely acknowledged that bed and breakfast accommodation is not suitable for 16 and 17 year olds even on an emergency accommodation basis."
The Defendant's approach to its statutory obligations
On 25 th November 2014, C presented as 'homeless' to Tower Hamlets Children's Social Care. She indicated that her family lived in Enfield but she did not wish to return to them. She gave a generalised account of incidents of domestic violence and explained that she had been abroad for two months and had just returned to the UK.
Tower Hamlets completed a preliminary assessment entitled Framework for Understanding Families, dated 27 th November 2014, which outlined concerns about C's father in these terms:
"He reported that A had been in Bulgaria for 4–5 weeks and that he had funded this holiday. When I explored with him about who was looking after A in Bulgaria, he advised that she was staying on her own and this raised concerns about why he would allow a 16 year old child to travel to a foreign country on her own, however advised she needed respite, hence this arrangement."
The account given by C to social services is recorded thus:
"been running away from home due to what she reported as a volatile relationship with her parents. She reported that there had been incidents in the past where there had been physical abuse and on-going emotional abuse."
The report also stated:
"information shared by A highlighted concerns around issues surrounding radicalisation even with the limited information we had and the fact that she has travelled to different countries on her own, managed to live in different hotels and claims that self-funding the trips."
This assessment drew an important conclusion, upon which Ms. Mellon placed considerable emphasis:
"A is an Enfield child who is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of AB) v The London Borough of Ealing
...remedy has been recognised in subsequent first instance decisions, including R (on the application of A) v London Borough of Enfield [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin), [2016] HLR 33 at [52–58]. In the present case, the Defendant does not dispute the availability of this remedy in principle. Rather, ......
-
The King (on the application of HP) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Greenwich
...are] 25 . 14 The duties and entitlements applicable to a “former relevant child” are important. As Hayden J said in A v Enfield LBC [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) [2017] 1 FLR 203 (§17iv below) at §46: the status of ‘former relevant children’ … has considerable legal significance, establishing an......