Western Trust v P & Q
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | District Judge (MC) Meehan |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] NIMag 2 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 02 April 2019 |
Neutral Citation No: [2019] NIMag 2
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: 2019NIMAG2
Delivered: 02/04/2019
IN THE FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT SITTING AT DUNGANNON
WESTERN TRUST Applicant
AND
P
AND
Q Respondents
(Ex Parte Emergency Protection Order)
DISTRICT JUDGE MEEHAN
Paragraph
The Facts
1
The Disposal
6
M(Mother) v South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and
F(Father): Department of Justice, Third Party.
12
The statutory Framework
16
Making a Complaint to a Magistrates’ Court
19
Emergency Protection Orders
24
The Issue of Proceedings
26
Service of Proceedings
34
The Voice of the Child
37
Applications brought Without Issue of Proceedings (Ex Parte)
40
X Council v B
43
The Single Jurisdiction
57
The Consequence of Either Parent not Appearing
60
The Powers of a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)(Northern
Ireland)
65
The Need to Obtain Leave
68
The Human Rights Issue
71
Discharge of an EPO
73
The Facts
1. On arrival at Dungannon courthouse on 2nd April for scheduled sittings
of the Family Proceedings Court I was approached by the clerk and
provided with a draft summons in Form C1A, a Form C1 application
and a supplementary Form C8 in an intended application by the Western
Trust for an Emergency Protection Order, pursuant to Article 63 of the
Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (“the 1995 Order”). The
provision of a summons normally signals an intention to have the
Application simply issued and dispatched for service, but in fact the
Trust’s intention was to move it before that day’s Court1.
2. In speaking to the solicitor for the Directorate of Legal Services, acting
for the Trust, I was informed that the first respondent, mother of the
subject children, had been told the previous day that this Emergency
Protection Order application was to be brought. When I remarked upon
the novel addition of a draft summons, the Trust’s solicitor told me this
initiative followed discussion between the Department of Justice and the
Directorate of Legal Services and that it would be his intention to ask
that I direct an abridgment of time for service.
3. As though to underscore that the preparation of a summons by the
Directorate of Legal Services was unprecedented, it was later found that
the Court Service computer programme was unable to register it2. It was
programmed only for a summons concerning the further extension of an
Emergency Protection Order.
4. Sometime before the Family Proceedings Court was free to hear the
application (around 2.00pm), the social worker involved had actually
1 While I describe the document as being Form C1A summons, it was a document which omitted the
sections on Particulars of Service ( “To be completed by Summons S erver or person who has obta ined
permission to serve the with in summons”), Certificate o f Service and the “Notes regarding th e
completion of Form C1A (FPC)”, of which the following are worth noting: 3. “The date of hearing should
be left blank for completion by court staff”, and 4. “The date fixed for hearing should take account of
the minimum period for servic e detailed in Schedule 2 to the Rules subject to any overriding direction
from the court.”
Conversely, the single sheet is footed with a statement in heavy bold announcing that it has been “filed”
be the Chief Legal Advisor of Business Services Organisatio n.
2 Compare this to the representation made to the Court in In Re ES [2007] NIQB 58 on behalf of the
Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety that “… the application will usually be made
on notice although sometimes ex parte applications will be necessary where the emergency of the
circumstances demands it.”
To continue reading
Request your trial