Domestic violence and harassment - Injunction - Inherent jurisdiction - 10 men found to have sexually exploited 17-year-old girl
Civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction were made against 10 men found to have sexually exploited the 17-year-old girl to prevent them from making contact with her or any other female under the age of 18.
(Family Division, Keehan J, 15 December 2014)
The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports
[2015] 2 FLR 763
Domestic violence and harassment - Injunction - Inherent jurisdiction - 10 men found to have sexually exploited 17-year-old girl
The full judgment is available below
Civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction were made against 10 men found to have sexually exploited the 17-year-old girl to prevent them from making contact with her or any other female under the age of 18.
The 17-year-old
vulnerable young person was alleged to have been the victim of child sexual
exploitation by at least 10 older men. Initially the local authority sought a
secure accommodation order but it proved to be ineffective in providing the
necessary protection.
There was insufficient
evidence to secure criminal convictions against the 10 men and, therefore the
local authority sought civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court to prevent any further contact or association with the girl or with
any female under the age of 18, previously unknown to them in a public place.
The orders sought were
drafted with reference to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Antisocial Behaviour
Orders) and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Sexual Offences Prevention Orders and
Risk of Sexual Harm Orders).
The court found that
it was appropriate to grant the local authority permission to apply for the
orders sought pursuant to s 100(3) of the Children Act 1989. It was submitted
that the case raised matters of such general public importance that the
hearings should be held in public. Interim reporting restriction orders were
made to protect the identity of the victim and the 10 men.
At the final hearing
there was no issue with the continuation of the RRO in respect of the victim
but it fell to be determined whether the men had been engaged in sexual
exploitation and whether the RRO should continue in respect of them.
It was held that all
10 men had been engaged in the sexual exploitation of the girl. The evidence
demonstrated that the girl was known in the local area as a vulnerable young
girl who could be persuaded to participate in sexual activity with older Asian
men. There remained a real risk that the men would seek to sexually exploit
other vulnerable young girls under the age of 18. The terms of the order were
fair, necessary and proportionate to the risk identified.
An RRO protecting the
identity of defendants in a criminal case heard in open court in order to
protect family members could only be contemplated in exceptional circumstances.
In this instance although publicity about the men might cause embarrassment,
distress or anxiety, it would not have occurred if they had not engaged in
sexually exploitative behaviour. Such cases attracted considerable and
widespread public interest and there were exceedingly powerful arguments in
favour of the public knowing the details of them.
The balance clearly fell in favour of the Art 10,
European Convention rights of the press. The RROs in respect of the 10 men
would be discharged.
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam)
Case No: BM14P09068
BM14P09069
BM14P09070
BM14P09071
BM14P09073
BM14P09074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 15 December 2014
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEEHAN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Applicant
- and -
(1) SARFRAZ RIAZ
(2) MOHAMMED JAVED
(3) NAZEEM KHAN
(4) SHAH ALAM
(5) MANSUR AHMED
(6) RAHMAN AZIZ
(7) IMRAN UDDIN
(8) OMAR AHMED
(9) MOHAMMED ANJAM
(10) SAJID HUSSAIN
(11) WEST MIDLANDS POLICE
(12) AB
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lorna Meyer QC, Stefano Nuvuloni and Heather Popley (instructed by Birmingham City Council) for the Applicant
David Kelly (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Ahmed Williams) for the 8th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (pro bono) for the 8th Respondent
Joanna Chadwick (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9th Respondent
Sarah Simcock (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Joint Legal Services, Birmingham ) for the 11th Respondent
Poonam Bhari (19 November 2014 hearing onwards) (instructed by Greens) for the 12th Respondent
Hearing dates: 13, 17, 22, 27 October 2014
17, 19, 20, 27 November 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Order by
Newest on top Oldest on top