KB (A Child) v Borough Council & Ors
November 25, 2009
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE THORPE
- LORD JUSTICE WALL
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
November 25, 2009
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Judgment
Lord Justice Wall :
Introduction (1) the applications
These are applications by both the guardian of a young child KB and by the local authority which has taken care proceedings in relation to her and her half brother TA, for permission to appeal against the dismissal by His Honour Judge Donald Hamilton sitting in the Reading County Court on 4 September 2009 of the local authority’s application for an interim care order under section 38 of the Children Act 1989 (the Act) in relation to KB. The judge made an interim supervision order in relation to KB and an interim care order in relation to TA. The latter was not disputed in the court below and is not the matter of challenge in this court.
The judge refused an application made on behalf of KB for permission to appeal, but made an interim care order under section 40(1) of the Act until 14 September 2009 to enable the guardian and / or the local authority to apply for permission to appeal to this court.
On 11 September 2009, Wilson LJ granted a stay of the judge’s order, and directed that the order made by the judge under section 40(1) of the Act be varied to the effect that it would expire only on final refusal of permission to appeal or, if granted, on determination of the appeal.
On 12 October 2009, having read a transcript of the judge’s judgment, Wilson LJ adjourned the two permission applications for consideration at an oral hearing on notice on 28 October 2009, with the appeals to follow if permission was granted. We heard argument on that date and reserved judgment.
Introduction (2): General Comments
Before I deal with the substances of the applications, I would like to make a number of points about the circuit bench and family proceedings in the county court, from which, of course, these applications originates. I begin in this way because I have reached the clear conclusion that we should; (1) grant permission to appeal; (2) allow the two consequential appeals; and (3) direct that KB should be made the subject of an interim care order in favour of the local authority. As the case is ongoing, I also think we should impose reporting restrictions, and this judgment will be written anonymously.
I would not want it to be thought that those of us who sit in this court are unaware of the enormous pressures on circuit judges at the present time. It is not for nothing that the circuit bench has been described as the engine room of the family justice system. Due to the shortage of High Cour
AI Generated Summary
This appeal in urgent family proceedings concerns KB, aged two, and TA, aged six, living with their mother LB and KB’s father RSB. After a 29 July 2009 visit, social worker HW and police found TA confined in a pitch‑dark, sparse bedroom with blood‑stained bedding and a potty, while EW, LB’s 19‑year‑old daughter, described TA being hit and severely restricted, and KB being treated preferentially. HHJ Donald Hamilton later dismissed the local authority’s bid for an interim care order for KB and made an interim supervision order, despite an uncontested interim care order for TA. Lord Justice Wall held the judge’s balancing exercise was flawed, minimized the severity of TA’s treatment and the risk to KB, and failed to engage with appellate guidance and the guardian’s recommendation. Applying principles from Re L‑A and related authorities, the Court of Appeal granted permission, allowed the appeals, directed an interim care order for KB, imposed reporting restrictions, and left final outcomes to the trial judge.