Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140

Sep 29, 2018, 19:33 PM
Practice and procedure – Witness – Adverse findings against professionals – Whether procedure was fair – Whether the professionals had a right of appeal – Whether those findings should be set aside
The appeal from findings made against professionals in care proceedings was allowed and the relevant parts of the judgment were set aside.
Slug : re-w-a-child-2016-ewca-civ-1140
Meta Title : Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140
Meta Keywords : Practice and procedure – Witness – Adverse findings against professionals – Whether procedure was fair – Whether the professionals had a right of appeal – Whether those findings should be set aside
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 21, 2016, 10:33 AM
Article ID : 113373

(Court of Appeal, Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, McFarlane, Christopher Clarke LJJ, 17 November 2016)

Practice and procedure – Witness – Adverse findings against professionals – Whether procedure was fair – Whether the professionals had a right of appeal – Whether those findings should be set aside

The appeal from findings made against professionals in care proceedings was allowed and the relevant parts of the judgment were set aside.

The issue for determination was: can a witness in Family proceedings, who is the subject of adverse judicial findings and criticism, and who asserts that the process in the lower court was so unfair as to amount to a breach of his/her rights to a personal and private life under Art 8 of the European Convention challenge the judge's findings on appeal? If so, on what basis and, if a breach of Art 8 is found, what is the appropriate remedy?

In care proceedings a fact-finding hearing took place in relation to allegations of sexual abuse by an older sibling. That sibling himself also made allegations against adult males. None of the allegations were found proved and the judge was critical of a range of professionals involved including a social worker and a police officer. In particular he found that they together with other professionals and the foster carer, were involved in a joint enterprise to obtain evidence to prove the sexual abuse allegations irrespective of any underlying truth and irrespective of the relevant professional guidelines. The judge found that both individuals had lied to the court with respect to an important aspect of the child sexual abuse investigation.

The local authority, the named social worker and the named police officer all sought to appeal and for the relevant passages of the judgment to be removed.

Since the social worker and police officer had been invited to make submissions following the circulation of the draft judgment they had clearly gained intervenor status and as such were parties to the proceedings for the purposes of FPR 12.3(3),(4). They, therefore, had a right of appeal.

In this case once the judge formed the view that significant adverse findings might be made against the professionals and that they were outside the case as it had been put to the witnesses he should have alerted the parties to the situation and canvassed submissions on the appropriate way to proceed. If the judgment was no allowed to stand including the adverse findings against the named professionals their Art 8, European Convention rights would be breached, irrespective of whether the judgment was published since the need to inform employers or prospective employers applied regardless of publication.

The process adopted by the judge fell far short of the wide margin of that which fairness required in the circumstances of this case.

While the local authority could not rely on the rights enshrined by Art 8 of the European Convention it was entitled to the benefit of the right to a fair trial under Art 6. Therefore, the same conclusion could be reached with regard to the criticisms below of the local authority.

In this instance the judge's findings themselves were a 'judicial act' which was capable of being held to be unlawful under s 7(1) of the HRA 1998 and therefore the proper subject of an appeal, without having to consider whether or not it was a 'decision', 'determination', 'order' or 'judgment'.

The appeal was allowed. The relevant parts of the judgment would be removed and those findings set aside.



Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1140
Case No: B4/2015/1962
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 17/11/2016

Before:

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE

and

LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: W (A child)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Charles Geekie QC and Miss Gemma Kelly (instructed by a local authority) for the Appellant
Mr Zimran Samuel (Pro Bono) for ‘SW’
Mr Ben Brandon and Ms Emma Collins (instructed by Slater and Gordon LLP) for ‘PO’
Mr Frank Feehan QC (instructed by Philcox Gray Solicitors) for the third Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 10th, 11th 12th November 2015 and 16th June 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment Approved

Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140.rtf
Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Practice and Procedure
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from