Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: A Local Authority v D (Chief Constable of A Police Authority Intervening); Re D [2006] EWHC 1465 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:24 PM
Slug : a-local-authority-v-d-chief-constable-of-a-police-authority-intervening-re-d-2006-ewhc-1465-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 20, 2006, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85147

(Family Division; Sumner J; 20 June 2006)

Care proceedings had been instituted in respect of three children following the discovery of serious non-accidental injuries to the youngest child. In police interviews the father had admitted that he had been violent towards the child and he had eventually been charged with child cruelty. During the course of the local authority investigation, documents obtained by the authority (medical reports, a statement from mother alleging that the father had been violent, a statement from father admitting violence to the mother but denying violence towards the child, and a statement from the father withdrawing his confession) were disclosed to the police child protection officer by a social worker. The officer, who was also involved in the criminal investigation, applied to the court for clarification as to whether the documents could be used and whether or not permission for such use was required under the Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005 (the 2005 Rules).

Under the 2005 Rules, once the police had obtained information produced in relation to family proceedings in the form of a document, they could use that information for child protection purposes, however, confidential information and documents produced for family proceedings could not otherwise be used without the court's express permission. A distinction was to be made between information and documents; the police could use information contained within disclosed documents for child protection purposes, but not the documents themselves without express permission. Using a short quotation from a document would not be using a document and acting in the protection of children was to be given a wide interpretation. When social workers were handing on information to the police it would be helpful if they (i) indicated to the police the source, unless it was confidential and (ii) at an appropriate time informed all parties to the proceedings about the information disclosed. Unopposed applications by the police to use such documents could be considered as paper applications to avoid the time and cost of a court hearing and could be made by the local authority on a directions hearing where use was not contentious and the court had all the relevant information. The 2005 Rules did not permit disclosure to a defence lawyer without the permission of the court; such permission could be sought through a party to the care proceedings, provided notice was given in writing to all parties, the application identified all the documents concerned, and was supported by a letter from the defence lawyer; the court reserving the right to hear argument directly from the lawyer. There was no irregularity in child protection officers becoming involved in the resulting criminal investigations. Permission was granted in the instant case.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from