Relatives of a child who was in local authority care disagreed with the authority’s plans for her future.
Held: They could not challenge them by seeking a determination on the merits in wardship.
Lord Scarman referred to Liverpool v A and said: ‘Authoritative speeches were delivered by Lord Wilberforce and Lord Roskill which it was reasonable to hope would put an end to attempts to use the wardship jurisdiction so as to secure a review by the High Court on the merits of decisions taken by local authorities pursuant to the duties and powers imposed and conferred on them by the statutory code.’ and ‘The High Court cannot exercise its powers, however wide they may be, so as to intervene on the merits in an area of concern entrusted by Parliament to another public authority. It matters not that the chosen public authority is one which acts administratively whereas the court, if seized of the same matter, would act judicially. If Parliament in an area of concern defined by statute (the area in this case being the care of children in need or trouble) prefers power to be exercised administratively instead of judicially, so be it. The courts must be careful in that area to avoid assuming a supervisory role or reviewing power over the merits of decisions taken administratively by the selected public authority.’
Lord Scarman disputed what were the parens patriae powers of the Family Court (as opposed to High court’s powers in judicial review): ‘The ground of decision in A v Liverpool City Council [1982] AC 363 was nothing to do with judicial discretion but was an application in this field of the profoundly important rule that where Parliament has by statute entrusted to a public authority an administrative power subject to safeguards which, however, contain no provision that the High Court is to be required to review the merits of decisions taken pursuant to the power, the High Court has no right to intervene. If there is abuse of the power, there can of course be judicial review pursuant to RSC Ord 53: but no abuse of power has been, or could be, suggested in this case.’
Judges:
Lord Scarman
Citations:
[1985] AC 791, [1985] 2 All ER 301, [1985] 2 WLR 892, (1985) 149 JP 593, (1985) 83 LGR 669, [1985] Fam Law 326
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – A v Liverpool City Council HL 1981
Though the child was subject to a care order in favour of the local authority, a wardship order was sought.
Held: Once a care order had been made, whether final or interim, the court was effectively faced with a choice and not a choice which . .
Cited by:
Cited – A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 24-Jan-2002
The case asked how cases involving disputes as to the care of children, and of the treatment of adults claimed to be mentally incompetent. Where the issues were solely ones of public law, then they should be heard by way of judicial review in the . .
Cited – Re A Ward of Court FD 4-May-2017
Ward has no extra privilege from Police Interview
The court considered the need to apply to court in respect of the care of a ward of the court when the Security services needed to investigate possible terrorist involvement of her and of her contacts. Application was made for a declaration as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182862
