Worcestershire County Council (First Claimant) Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board (Second Claimant) v Hm Coroner for the County of Worcestershire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jeremy Baker |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1711 (QB) |
| Docket Number | IHQ/12/0864,Case No: IHQ/12/0864 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 20 June 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1711 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Jeremy Baker
Case No: IHQ/12/0864
Mr Bernard Thorogood (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for the Claimants
Mr Jonathan Hough (instructed by Withers LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 2 nd May 2013
On the afternoon of 3.3.11, 16 year old Dana Baker, was found hanging from a tree near a traffic island in Kidderminster. Despite the efforts of the police and paramedics who attended at the scene, she was pronounced dead.
Dana had had a troubled life. There were allegations that she had been sexually abused as a young child by a friend of the family, but this did not result in criminal proceedings. However further allegations of sexual abuse when she was older eventually resulted in criminal proceedings being commenced against her karate instructor. These proceedings were current at the time of her death and subsequently resulted in his conviction and imprisonment.
Dana had a difficult relationship with her parents and from a relatively early age had expressed suicidal thoughts. She self harmed and on the 6.5.09 was admitted to hospital, having taken an overdose of prescribed drugs. On 22.5.09 she was transferred to an adolescent mental health unit where she remained until 8.9.09. At that time the psychiatrist's opinion was that Dana posed a serious long term risk of suicide. It was also recognised that Dana made strong emotional attachments to individuals and reacted dramatically if those came to an end.
During this period Dana made it clear that she did not wish to return to live with her parents and they agreed (S.20 of the Children Act 1989) that she would be accommodated with foster carers by Worcestershire County Council Children's Services ("Children's Services").
On her discharge from the unit Dana went to live with a foster carer. This was arranged through an independent fostering agency, Child Care Bureau Limited ("the Independent Fostering Agency"), as no suitable in-house foster carers were available. Whilst living with that foster carer Dana continued to self harm and the foster carer reported that she was having difficulties with the arrangement, such that respite carers were identified by the Independent Fostering Agency and Dana moved into live with them on 30.11.09.
Although it was originally envisaged that these foster carers would only provide temporary respite care, it became clear that the arrangement with the original foster carer had broken down, and Dana remained living with these new foster carers.
Whilst living with these foster carers, Dana progressed well at school. However, the criminal proceedings against the karate instructor became enmeshed in delay and there were changes of social workers both from Children's Services and the Independent Fostering Agency. There were periods of stress and moments of crisis in the arrangements with the new foster carers and Dana continued to self harm. She also disclosed suicidal thoughts, including giving serious consideration to hanging herself.
On 27.2.11 an incident took place between Dana and her foster carers as a result of which Dana expressed a desire to leave them. Respite care was offered to Dana but declined. Instead an arrangement was made that she would stay with the parents of a friend of Dana's on a temporary basis. She went to stay with them on 1.3.11 and indeed remained living there up until her death 2 days later.
On 1.3.11 Dana expressed a desire to return to her foster carers. However her foster carers decided that they could no longer look after Dana.
On 2.3.11 Dana was told of the foster carers' decision. She became distraught and ran to their home. An emotional scene ensued. Dana talked of killing herself and she was taken to see a GP. However at that stage Dana denied any suicidal thoughts and she was eventually persuaded to return to her temporary carers.
On 3.3.11 Dana was visited by a Children's Services social worker and it was apparent that she had been self harming. The social worker confirmed that Dana could not return to her previous foster carers. Dana again became extremely upset, but agreed to remain with her temporary carers. During the course of the day Dana made a number of phone calls and sent texts to the current and previous social workers employed by the Independent Fostering Agency. These were communicated to Children's Services.
At about 4.30pm one of her temporary carers dropped Dana off in Kidderminster so that she could meet up with her boyfriend. At about 5pm these carers received a text message from Dana stating that, "I'm so sorry, I didn't ever want to lie to you but I promised I would not do anything at your house. Thank you for everything u have done for me. I love u always and I am so sorry. Dana xx." The Independent Fostering Agency also received a phone call from Dana in which she said that, "I just want to tell you that all I wanted was my family and you have taken that away from me and so I am calling to say goodbye, so goodbye." It was shortly after this text and call that Dana was found near a traffic island, together with a hand written note which appeared to indicate a desire to take her own life.
As a result of Dana's death, HM Coroner for the County of Worcestershire ("HM Coroner") opened and adjourned an inquest into her death, and the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board ("The Board") undertook a Serious Case Review ("SCR"). In the course of this review The Board obtained 10 Individual Management Reviews ("IMRs") and 6 Information Reports ("IRs"), and produced an SCR Overview Report, which is in draft form pending the outcome of the inquest.
HM Coroner requested to be provided with a copy of the draft overview report together with copies of the IMRs and IRs. Although initially resistant to the disclosure of the overview report, The Board have provided a copy of the draft overview report to him, but have declined to provide him with any of the IMRs or IRs.
As a result on the 15.11.12 HM Coroner applied to The High Court for permission to issue witness summonses requiring The Board and Worcestershire County Council ("The Council") to produce these and other documents to him, pursuant to CPR 34.3(2)(c) and CPR 34.4(1). That permission was granted by Master Cook on 15.11.12. On 5.12.12 The Board and The Council applied to set aside these witness summonses on the basis that their contents are protected by public interest immunity and/or their disclosure is unnecessary, pursuant to CPR 34.4(2).
In the course of the hearing of this matter on 2.5.13, it became clear that as the IMRs and IRs are in the possession and control of The Board, it was unnecessary for the witness summons to be pursued against The Council, and so that application has been withdrawn. Moreover, it was clarified that the only documentation which HM Coroner now seeks from The Board is the IMRs and IRs, as no other potentially relevant documentation is in their possession.
The Board's submissions
Mr Thorogood commenced his submissions by indicating that The Board was anxious to give all proper assistance to HM Coroner and effectively sought the guidance of the court as to the proper approach to be taken by it in these circumstances.
However, he pointed out that the purpose of an SCR was not to enquire into how a child has died, but for the contributing agencies to identify and learn lessons to improve the way in which they work individually and together to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In doing so, it relied upon IMRs which are undertaken by the various contributing agencies with a view to looking openly and critically at individual and organisational practice. He submitted that in order to facilitate and promote candour on behalf of those contributing to the IMRs, it was necessary that they should be assured that their contributions would not be made public, but be confined to those undertaking the SCR.
He submitted that in those circumstances there was a clear public interest in protecting IMRs from disclosure and accordingly disclosure of the IMRs and IRs in this case should not be ordered.
He went on to submit that if the party who sought disclosure requested the court to inspect the IMRs and IRs, with a view to undertaking the balancing exercise between protecting their confidential nature against the public interest in providing sufficient information for the purposes of the inquest, then there was a duty upon that party to satisfy the court that there were sufficient grounds for expecting to find material of real importance to him in those documents. He submitted, now that The Board had disclosed the draft overview report, that HM Coroner could not satisfy the court of this matter. Indeed, although he conceded that the content of the IMRs and IRs contained potentially relevant material, it was not necessary for disclosure of these documents to be made to HM Coroner, as he had sufficient information for the purposes of the inquest as a result of the disclosure of the draft overview report.
There was a further concern raised, namely, that if disclosure of the IMRs and IRs was made to HM Coroner, there was at least a possibility that in turn, he would consider that some or all parts of that material would be required to be disclosed to the interested parties to the inquest.
HM Coroner's submissions
Mr Hough commenced his submissions by indicating that HM Coroner respected the position of The Board.
However he indicated that HM Coroner only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of the Secretary of State) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk British Airline Pilots Association (Intervener)
...and is common ground. 40 Finally Ms Hewitt relies upon the decision of Baker J in Worcestershire County Council and Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board v HM Coroner for Worcestershire [2013] EWHC 1711, in which it was said that disclosure to a coroner is a two stage process. At the f......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v HM Senior Coroner for Surrey Mrs Tatiana Perepilichnaya and Others (Interested Parties)
...The Senior Coroner may consider it appropriate and feasible for a procedure akin to that envisaged in Worcestershire County Council v. HM Coroner for the County for Worcestershire [2013] EWHC 1711 (QB) to be adopted. Should the Senior Coroner propose to disclose the gist, however, HMG has i......