Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Children - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 39 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
G v G (Minors: Custody appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] FLR 894; [1985] 2 All ER 225
1985
CA
Sir John Arnold
Children, Litigation Practice
A court should take great care before setting aside a decision of a judge which had involved the exercise of a judicial discretion. The court considered the duty of an appellate court in a children case: "What this court should seek to do is to answer the question whether the court discerns a wrongness in the result of so striking a character as to make it a legitimate conclusion that there must have been an error of method - apart, of course, from a disclosed inclusion of irrelevant or exclusion of relevant matters . . the appellate court should only interfere when they consider that the judge of first instance has not merely preferred an imperfect solution which is different from an alternative imperfect solution which the Court of Appeal might or would have adopted, but has exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible."
1 Citers



 
 In re W (a Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction); HL 1985 - [1985] AC 791; [1985] 2 All ER 301; [1985] 2 WLR 892; (1985) 149 JP 593; (1985) 83 LGR 669; [1985] Fam Law 326
 
Central Regional Council v B 1985 S L T 413
1985


Scotland, Children
In the absence of any specific provision forbidding or restricting appeals, the presumption was that the ordinary rules applied in respect of a summary application. Since those rules allowed appeals, the plea to the competency of an appeal from the sheriff in that case was repelled.
Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
1 Citers


 
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security [1985] 2 WLR 413
1985
CA
Eveleigh, Fox and Parker L.JJ
Health, Children
The court granted to the claimant a declaration as to the unlawfulness of guidance to Health Authorities that it was possible to provide contraceptive advice and treatment to her daughters when under 16 and without her express consent.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Surrogacy) [1985] FLR 846
1985


Children
Where a child has been born through surrogacy, and the mother does not want the child, and the commissioning parents are able to offer a suitable home, the court is likely to allow them to care for the child.

 
G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] 1 WLR 647; [1985] 2 All ER 225; [1985] UKHL 13; [1985] FLR 894
25 Apr 1985
HL
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Diplock, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Bridge of Harwich
Litigation Practice, Children
The House asked when a decision, on the facts, of a first instance court is so wrong as to allow it to be overturned on appeal. Held: The epithet "wrong" is to be applied to the substance of the decision made by the lower court. "Certainly it would not be useful to inquire whether different shades of meaning are intended to be conveyed by words such as 'blatant error' used by the President in the present case, and words such as 'clearly wrong', 'plainly wrong', or simply 'wrong' used by other judges in other cases. All these various expressions were used in order to emphasise the point that the appellate court should only interfere when they consider that the judge of first instance has not merely preferred an imperfect solution which is different from an alternative imperfect solution which the Court of Appeal might or would have adopted, but has exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible".
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton said: "The reason for the limited role of The Court of Appeal in custody cases is not that appeals in such cases are subject to any special rules, but that there are often two or more possible decisions, any one of which might reasonably be thought to be the best, and any one of which therefore a judge may make without being held to be wrong. In such cases, therefore, the judge has a discretion and they are cases to which the observations of Asquith LJ, as he then was, in Bellenden (Formerly Sattherthwaite) v Satterthwaite [1948] 1 All ER 343 apply." and
After quoting Asquith LJ, Lord Fraser continued: "I would only add that, in cases dealing with the custody of children, the desirability of putting an end to litigation, which applies to all classes of case, is particularly strong because the longer legal proceedings last, the more are the children, whose welfare is at stake, likely to be disturbed by the uncertainty.
Nevertheless, there will be some cases in which the Court of Appeal decides that the judge of first instance has come to the wrong conclusion. In such cases it is the duty of the Court of Appeal to substitute its own decision for that of the judge."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security; HL 17-Oct-1985 - [1985] 3 All ER 402; [1986] AC 112; [1985] 3 WLR 830; [1985] UKHL 7; [1986] 1 FLR 229
 
Porchetta v Porchetta 1986 SLT 105
1986

Lord Dunpark
Scotland, Children
Before the Act of 1986 was enacted, a father did not have an absolute right to access to his child. He is only entitled to access if the court is satisfied that that is in the best interests of the child, and that the onus to show that is on the father who seeks access. The child in this action of divorce, was only 18 months old. He had had almost no contact with his father, who had seen him only twice very briefly. The mother was adamantly opposed to access, and the judge was satisfied that any attempt at access at that time would only sustain this hostility and that the child would sooner or later sense it and suffer thereby. The only reason given for the father's application was that he was the father of the child. Held: Once the paramountcy of the child's welfare was recognised, there could be no assumption of a right of access.
Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 3
1 Citers


 
In re D (A Minor); D v Berkshire County Council [1987] AC 317; [1987] 1 All ER 20; [1986] 3 WLR 1080; (1986) 151 JP 313; (1986) 85 LGR 169; [1987] Fam Law 202
1986
HL
Lord Brandon
Children
A baby was taken into care suffering from drug withdrawal symptoms from birth. On a literal reading of the phrase, “baby’s heath is being impaired”, the statutory test could never be met on the particular facts of the case. Held: The phrase applied to the continuous period from birth and was continuing at the time the Order was made. The Order was valid.
Lord Brandon analysed the statute, which provided for a place of safety order, an interim order and, finally, a full care order, saying: "With regard to the second question relating to the expression 'is being', it is in my opinion necessary to have in mind the purpose sought to be achieved not only by Section 1 but also by Section 28 of the 1969 Act. The effect of Section 28, when combined with that of Section 1, is to create a process for the protection of children which may often include three separate but connected stages . . Against the background of these three possible stages . . it is, in my view, clear that the Court, in considering whether a continuing situation . . exists, must do so at the point of time immediately before the process of protecting the child concerned is first put into motion. To consider that matter at a point of time when the child has been placed under protection for several weeks . . would . . defeat the purpose of Parliament."
Children and Young Persons Act 1969
1 Citers



 
 Andersson and Kullman v Sweden; ECHR 1986 - (1986) 46 DR 251
 
In re H (a Minor) [1986] Fam 121
1986


Children, Adoption

1 Citers


 
Kelly v Monklands District Council 1986 SLT 169
1986


Scotland, Housing, Children, Local Government
A local authority's housing duties may be owed to a child if that child is living independently of its parents.
1 Citers


 
Lonslow v Hennig [1986] 2 FLR 378
1986
CA
Dillon LJ
Children
The mother sought leave to remove the children of the family against the father's wishes. She wanted to move to New Zealand. The judge at first instance had refused her application. She appealed. Held. The appeal succeeded. Though the first point was that the welfare of the children was the paramount consideration and second that previous cases decided on other facts could only provide guidelines, the court noted that there was a consistent line of guidance throughout the decisions of the court since 1970.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Riley v Riley [1986] 2 FLR 429
1986


Children

1 Citers



 
 W v United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 29

 
 In re B (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation); HL 1987 - [1988] AC 199; [1987] 2 All ER 206; [1987] 2 WLR 1213; Gazette, 13 May 1987

 
 IPH v Chief Constable of South Wales; QBD 1987 - [1987] Crim LR 42
 
In re D (A Minor) [1987] 1 WLR 1400
1987

Woolf LJ
Children, Education
A dispute as to whether the education authority is exercising its powers properly raises matters of public law to be determined by reference not to the principles of family law but to the principles of substantive public law applied by the Administrative Court.
Woolf LJ said: " . . there is no reason whatever why the court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction when it is desirable for it to do so in order to assist a local education authority to perform its statutory duties. It is only if the effect of exercising its powers would be to create a conflict between the role of the court and the role of the education authority, or the risk of such conflict, that the court should decline to intervene."
1 Citers


 
In re S (Minors) (Wardship: Police Investigation); Re S (Minors) (Wardship: Disclosure of Material) [1988] 1 FLR 1; [1987] Fam 199
1987
FD
Booth J
Family, Children
Local authority case records and a verbatim extract from the case records which had been exhibited to an affidavit from a social worker had been disclosed. Held: Booth J asked as to the case records: "whether the words in the section "information relating to proceedings" should be construed to cover documents which do not themselves form part of the evidence but which contain information upon which evidence was based" She held not: "I am satisfied that so far as the case records do not relate to matters which were placed in evidence before the court, there could be no basis upon which the court could, or should, give the local authority any directions as to their use . . I have been less clear as to the position with regard to those case records upon which evidence placed before the court was based, although they do not of themselves form part of that evidence. Undoubtedly, such records continue to be protected from disclosure by reason of the principle of public interest immunity: see In re S. and W. (Minors) (Confidential Reports) (1983) 4 FLR 290. Although the court has the statutory right and duty to protect a child by means of its control over information relating to proceedings heard in private, this must be balanced against the right of the local authority to preserve the confidentiality of its records and thereby to control access to them.
Since confidentiality in the records could not be considered to have been waived by reason only of the fact that they have been relied upon as the foundation for the social workers' evidence, I have come to the conclusion that those records also do not fall within the ambit of section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. To come to the contrary decision could have the effect of placing an unrealistic fetter upon the local authority in the course of their day-to-day use of their records".
As to the verbatim extract from the affidavit: "So it is still necessary to seek directions from the court whenever it is proposed to take a major step in the lives of the wards.
In my judgment, the disclosure to the police of the medical records and recordings for the purpose of criminal investigations falls into this category of decision . . the effect of granting the application could be far reaching. Indeed, the result of it could lead to the direct involvement of the ward in criminal proceedings, a fact which could be regarded as detrimental to his or her interests. It is, therefore, clearly a step of considerable importance in the life of any child. Similarly, if the police are to interview and conduct medical examinations of the wards then leave of the court must first be given. Such medical examinations do not have a therapeutic purpose, but a forensic purpose and, as in the case of the disclosure of the medical records and the video recordings, they may lead to the wards' direct involvement in subsequent proceedings. But if leave is given for the disclosure of those records and video recordings it seems to me that it must follow that leave must also be given to the police to conduct interviews with and, if necessary, examinations of, the wards. Having enabled the police to start upon an inquiry it would not be realistic, save in exceptional and presently unforeseen circumstances, to impose such limits upon them."
And: "In my judgment, a distinction must be made with regard to the verbatim extract from the case records, which in this case was exhibited to an affidavit made by a social worker. This exhibit was disclosed and filed by the local authority as part of its evidence to the court. Confidentiality in respect of this part of the case records has clearly been waived. The exhibit undoubtedly contains information relating to the proceedings since it constitutes a part of the evidence. I am satisfied that for this reason the extract of the case records comes within the ambit of section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and that its publication is precluded without leave of the court."
Administration of Justice Act 1960 12
1 Citers


 
Belton v Belton [1987] 2 FLR 343
1987
CA
Purchas LJ
Children
The mother appealed against refusal of leave to remove her children from the UK on emigrating to New Zealand. Held: The appeal succeeded.
Purchas LJ said that: "in carrying out the exercise of assessing what was in the interest of A as a paramount consideration, the judge omitted what to my mind was a crucial factor. That factor was the stability of the new family unit in which A was to grow up, the tensions that might be created in it during the ensuing 2 years or so, and the effect that that would necessarily have on A - of great gravity if the union in fact broke up under those stresses and still of considerable gravity if that union came under tensions which would almost certainly arise if the plans to go to New Zealand were frustrated . . I sympathise and understand, where a lay person such as a father is concerned, the difficulty of reconciliation with the concept of such a separation being in the paramount interests of the child in the long term, but the long-term interests of the child revolve around establishing, as Griffiths LJ (as he then was) said in Chamberlain, a sound, secure family unit in which the child should go forward and develop. If that can be supported by contact with the father, that is an immense advantage, but, if it cannot, then that is no reason for diverting one's concentration from the central and paramount issue in the case . . the authorities and the law dictate the hard and difficult decision which must be made once it is established that the custodial parent genuinely desires to emigrate and, in circumstances in which there is nothing adverse to be found in the conditions to be expected, those authorities are quite clear in the course that the court must take, whatever the hardship and distress that may result."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 B v United Kingdom; ECHR 1987 - (1987) 10 EHRR 87
 
Portman Registrars v Mohammed Latif [1987] 6 CL 217
1987


Housing, Children
A minor can succeed to a statutory tenancy under the Rent Acts. A statutory tenancy is not an interest in land and a minor does have the capacity to contract for necessaries such as lodging.
1 Citers


 
Montgomery v Lockwood 1987 SCLR 525
1987

Sheriff Principal R.R. Taylor QC
Scotland, Children
The pursuer had no right of access to the child unless the court granted it and that the court could not make any order unless it was satisfied that to do so would be in the interests of the child.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re K (Minors) (Wardship: Criminal Proceedings) [1988] Fam 1
24 Aug 1987
FD
Waterhouse J
Criminal Practice, Children
Children had been interviewed by the police before they became wards of court. Held: It would be a constitutional impropriety for the wardship court to intervene in the statutory process governing the conduct of a criminal trial and in matters within the jurisdiction of the Crown Court so as to grant or refuse leave for minors to be called as witnesses at a criminal trial.
Waterhouse J said: "In many cases, the wardship court is likely to be involved at an early stage because leave will have been sought for the police to interview a ward. In such circumstances it is inevitable that the court will have to perform a balancing exercise, weighing the potential damage to the child against the public interest, as a responsible parent would do. In reaching a decision, the best interests of a child may not be the first and paramount consideration . . " and "Mrs Puxon accepts on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service that, in general, it is the practice of the police to obtain the consent of a parent who has the custody of a child before interviewing the child as a potential witness. Similarly, the police work in close co-operation with social services departments in whose care children have been placed and obtain the consent of the department (as in this case) before interviewing a child in care. It is accepted also that, in the case of a ward of court, leave should be obtained from the wardship court before an interview by the police takes place." and "Once a prosecution has been instituted however, the statutory procedure must (it is said) take its normal course. The Crown Prosecution Service will, of course, consider any representation that may be made by a parent or a local authority about the potential adverse impact upon a child of having to give evidence. This may be one of the matters to be considered in deciding whether or not to proceed with particular charges, but the discretion is vested in the prosecuting authority rather than the parent or the local authority. In the present case, it is said further, an extraordinary and anomalous situation would arise, if the wardship court were to intervene, because the minors might be "protected" from the operation of the statutory rules governing the compellability of witnesses, whereas the other children involved in the case would have no similar protection."
He concluded: "I have no doubt that I should decline to exercise the wardship jurisdiction by either giving leave for the minors to be called as witnesses or by giving a direction in the matter in another form. In my judgment, it is neither necessary nor appropriate in child abuse cases for the Crown Prosecution Service to seek the leave of the wardship court to call a ward as a witness either before or after committal proceedings.
It is necessary, first of all, to set my conclusion in its proper context. In many cases, the wardship court is likely to be involved at an early stage because leave will have to be sought for the police to interview a ward. In such circumstances it is inevitable that the court will have to perform a balancing exercise, weighing the potential damage to the child against the public interest, as a responsible parent would do. In reaching a decision, the best interests of a child may not be the first and paramount consideration, for reasons that I have sufficiently explained. It is clear also that the court will have in mind that, if leave to interview the child is granted, a prosecution based on the child's evidence, at least in part, may ensue."
1 Citers


 
Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) [1987] 1 WLR 1739
11 Nov 1987
EW
Sir John Arnold P
Children
"Where the police desire to interview a child who is already a ward of court application must be made for leave for the police to do so . . If it is desired to conduct any interview beyond what is permitted by the order further application should be made for this purpose.
The President directs that all of the above applications be made to a judge on summons on notice to all parties."
1 Citers


 
Re L (A Minor) (Wardship: Freedom of Publication) [1988] 1 All ER 418
1988
FD
Booth J
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
The mere fact that a child is known to be a ward of court is not sufficient to make any publication identifying the child a contempt of court.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 12
1 Citers


 
In Re KD (A Minor) (Ward: Termination of Access) [1988] 1 AC 806
1988
HL
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman
Children, Human Rights
The local authority sought to terminate parental contact with a child taken into care under a wardship. Held. The court had to consider the human rights of the parent as against the welfare interest of the child. Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said: "My Lords I do not, for my part, discern any conflict between the propositions laid down by your Lordships' House in J. v C. and the pronouncements of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the natural parent's right of access to her child. Such conflict as exists, is, I think, semantic only and lies only in differing ways of giving expression to the single concept that the natural bond in the relationship between parent and child gives rise to universally recognised norms which ought not to be gratuitously interfered with and which, if interfered with at all, ought to be so only if the welfare of the child dictates it. The word "right" is used in a variety of different senses, both popular and jurisprudential . . Parenthood, in most civilised societies, is generally conceived of as conferring upon parents the exclusive privilege of ordering, within the family, the upbringing of children of tender age, with all that that entails. That is a privilege which, interfered with without authority, would be protected by the courts, but it is a privilege circumscribed by many limitations imposed both by the general law and, where circumstances demand, by the courts or by the authorities upon whom the legislature has imposed the duty of supervising the welfare of children and young persons. When the jurisdiction of the court is invoked for the protection of the child the parental privileges do not terminate. They do, however, become immediately subservient to the paramount consideration which the court has always in mind, that is to say, the welfare of the child. That is the basis of the decision of your Lordships' House in J. v C. [1970] A.C. 668 and I see nothing in R. v United Kingdom (Case 6/1986/104/152) which contradicts or casts any doubt upon that decision or which calls now for any re-appraisal of it by your Lordships. In particular the description of those familial rights and privileges enjoyed by parents in relation to their children as "fundamental" or "basic" does nothing, in my judgment, to clarify either the nature or the extent of the concept which it is sought to describe."
Lord Templeman said: "Public authorities cannot improve on nature."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Bouamar v Belgium (1988) 11 EHRR 1; 9106/80; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16; (1987) 11 EHRR 1; [1988] ECHR 1; [1988] ECHR 16
29 Feb 1988
ECHR

Human Rights, Children, Education
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved; Judgment (Just satisfaction) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
A person detained as a juvenile in need of educational supervision should not be detained in a prison where no education is available.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
H v The United Kingdom [1987] 10 EHRR 95; 9580/81; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14; [1988] ECHR 9; [1987] ECHR 14
9 Jun 1988
ECHR

Human Rights, Children
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of Art. 8; Just satisfaction reserved
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement); Non-pecuniary damage - financial award
Article 8 was infringed by delay in the conduct of access and adoption proceedings because the proceedings "lay within an area in which procedural delay may lead to a de facto determination of the matter in issue", which was precisely what had occurred.
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) (No 2) [1988] 1 WLR 989
18 Jul 1988
FD
Sir Stephen Brown P
Children, Police
"The registrar's direction of 11 November 1987, Practice Direction (Ward: Witness at Trial) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1739, set out the procedure to be followed to obtain leave for the police to interview a child who is a ward of court. It provided that all applications for leave should be made to a judge on summons on notice to all parties.
That procedure is hereby modified to the extent that where a party may become the subject of a criminal investigation and it is considered necessary for the ward to be able to be interviewed without that party knowing that the police are making inquiries, the application for leave may be made ex parte to a judge without notice to that party. Notice should, however, where practicable be given to the guardian ad litem.
There will be other occasions where the police need to deal with complaints, or alleged offences, concerning wards where it is appropriate, if not essential, for action to be taken straight away without the prior leave of the wardship court. Typical examples may be: (a) serious offences against the ward such as rape, where the medical examination and the collection of forensic evidence ought to be carried out promptly, (b) where the ward is suspected by the police of having committed a criminal act and the police wish to interview him in respect of that matter, (c) where the police wish to interview the ward as a potential witness. This list is not exhaustive. There will inevitably be other instances where immediate action is appropriate.
The President and judges of the Family Division are of the opinion that, where any such instances are encountered, the police should notify the parent or foster parent with whom the ward is living or other "appropriate adult" within the Home Office Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers, so that that adult has the opportunity of being present when the police interview the child. Additionally, if practicable the guardian ad litem (if one has been appointed) should be notified and invited to attend the police interview or to nominate a third party to attend on his behalf. A record of the interview or a copy of any statement made by the ward should be supplied to the guardian ad litem. Where the ward has been interviewed without the guardian's knowledge he should be informed at the earliest opportunity and (if it be the case) that the police wish to conduct further interviews. The wardship court should be appraised of the situation at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter by the guardian ad litem, the parent, foster-parent (through the local authority) or other responsible adult."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Tyler v Tyler; CA 1989 - [1989] 2 FLR 158
 
Re C (Wardship: Medical Treatment) (No 2) [1990] Fam 39
1989
CA
Lord Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ, Nicholls LJ
Media, Children
The court had already made an order about the way in which the health professionals were able to look after a severely disabled baby girl; an injunction was granted prohibiting identification of the child, her parents, her current carers and the hospital where she was being looked after. Although the child herself would know nothing of any publicity, she was entitled to medical confidentiality, and her welfare would be affected by the peace of mind of her carers. "Unless the public interest or a private right enforceable by the courts requires an injunction, the courts cannot intervene. On the facts of this case such intervention can only be justified upon one or other or a combination of two bases. These are (1) that the injunction is necessary for the welfare of C or for safeguarding her rights and (2) that the injunction is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice." An obligation of confidentiality was owed to a baby by those who had been caring for her.
1 Citers



 
 Re W (Wards) (Publication of Information); FD 1989 - [1989] 1 FLR 246
 
In re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1989] 2 All ER 782; [1989] 3 WLR 240; [1990] Fam 26
1989
CA

Children, Health

1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 H v H (Minor) (Child Abuse: Evidence); Re H (A Minor); Re K (Minors) (Child Abuse: Evidence); CA 1989 - [1990] Fam 86; [1989] 2 FLR 313

 
 C v C (Minor:Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad); CA 1989 - [1990] 2 AC 562; [1989] 2 All ER 465; [1989] 1 WLR 654; [1989] 1 FLR 403
 
In re A (A Minor) (Wardship: Police Caution) [1989] Fam 103
28 Jun 1989
FD
Cazalet J
Children, Police
The Court considered the role of the wardship court where the police wished to caution a ward of court. The question fell into two parts. In relation to the first, Cazalet J said this: "The decision as to whether to caution in lieu of prosecuting is a matter which is wholly within the discretion of the appropriate prosecuting authority. The question has been raised as to whether, when the juvenile concerned is a ward of court, the court has any power to intervene or play some part in such decision-making process."
Having referred to In re K (Minors) (Wardship: Criminal Proceedings) [1988] Fam 1, he continued: "In my view, similar considerations apply in the present circumstances, and it is for the prosecuting authority and that authority alone to decide whether to caution in lieu of prosecuting in a particular case. The court has no power to intervene in this decision-making process."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Hampshire County Council ex parte K and Another [1990] 1 FLR 330
1 Nov 1989

Watkins LJ and Waite J
Children, Information
Application was made for the disclosure of a local authorities social worker records, during the course of care proceedings after allegations of secual abuse had been made against the parents. Held: The court must look to the interests of the child: "as part and parcel of its general welfare, not only in having its own voice sympathetically heard and its own needs sensitively considered but also in ensuring that its parents are given every proper opportunity of having the evidence fairly tested and preparing themselves in advance to meet the grave charges against them." and "Local authorities therefore have a high duty in law, not only on grounds of general fairness but also in the direct interest of a child whose welfare they serve, to be open in the disclosure of all relevant material affecting that child in their possession or power (excluding documents protected on established grounds of public immunity) which may be of assistance to the natural parent or parents in rebutting charges against one or both of them of in any way ill-treating the child."
1 Citers


 
Re B (A Minor) [1990] FCR 469
15 Dec 1989
FD
Ewbank J
Children, Police
Ewbank J considered the case of a ward of court, aged 17.5 years who had been arrested by the police on suspicion of burglary and said: "After he was arrested he was interviewed by the police who did not know that he was a ward of court. They became aware that he was a ward of court at his trial, and the police accordingly brought the matter to the attention of the wardship court on the basis of the Practice Direction of 18 July 1988 . .
It is suggested that the wording of . . paragraph [(b)] implies that, if there is no urgency about the interviews, leave ought to be sought; and if prior leave has not been obtained, subsequent approval should be sought. I am told that these matters are going to be the subject of an application to the President in due course . .
The statutory provision in relation to interviews with children in police detention are contained in s 57 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides that where a child or young person is in police detention various steps must be taken. These provisions apply to children under 17 and do not apply to children over 17. The ward was 17.5, and accordingly under the statutory provision it was not necessary to inform anyone of the arrest or detention of the child.
In the circumstances, in a case of a child over 17 who is a ward of court, in my judgment, it is accordingly not necessary for prior leave to be sought or for subsequent approval to be sought of any steps taken by the police in respect of the arrest or detention of the child. I accordingly make no order on the application in this case."
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.