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
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...
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
View all articles
Authors

ET, BT and CT v Islington London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 323

Sep 29, 2018, 21:04 PM
Slug : et-bt-and-ct-v-islington-london-borough-council-2013-ewca-civ-323
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 17, 2013, 04:24 AM
Article ID : 102159

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Longmore, Black LJJ, 10 April 2013)

The three children, aged 14, 12 and 6, lived with the maternal grandmother in Islington due to concerns for the mother's care of them and her relationship with a man who had a history of sexual offending against children. When he was released from prison he was alleged to be living with his family just two streets away from the grandmother.

The grandmother brought judicial review proceedings on behalf of the children against the local authority claiming they failed to carry out assessments and make enquiries pursuant to their duties under s 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989. By the time of the hearing the local authority had produced initial assessments and accepted that they would need to update their risk assessment in light of information received regarding the time period of the man's licence conditions upon his release from prison.

The local authority had consulted with the police and other organisations prior to producing their original risk assessment and the police indicated in their assessment that the man posed a very high risk and provided details of his offending. However, that view altered prior to the completion of the assessment and the later view was that these children were at no more risk than other children in the local community. The children challenged the lawfulness of the local authority assessment based on that view. The court failed to find the assessment was unlawful. The children appealed.

The appeal was allowed on the ground that the local authority's assessment had been unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense in that it had been based on police evidence which had changed substantially. The local authority had failed to make a critical evaluation of the police evidence. 

 

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