MEDWAY COUNCIL V M AND T UNREPORTED 13TH OCTOBER 2015 JUDGE LAZARUS
Surrey Personal Injury and Child Abuse Compensation Claims – Human Rights
FACTS:-
These were applications by a child and her mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The mother was a foreign national who claimed to be a victim of human trafficking. She had suffered an extremely serious episode of depression with psychotic features in early 2013 resulting in detention in hospital. She had a child in June 2015 and suffered further psychotic illness. She was currently at a psychiatric mother and baby unit. She also had a learning difficulty. T had been born in 2008 and had first come to the notice of Medway Council in 2013. A social worker visited the mother in August 2013 and expressed concerns about her mental capacity. However, no assessment was undertaken until two years later. The social worker’s intention was to obtain the mother’s consent for T to be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. No valid section 20 agreement was ever obtained.
JUDGMENT:-
Judge Lazarus said the mother’s and T’s application was brought under section 7(1)(b) Human Rights Act 1998. The unlawful act was covered by section 6(1) Human Rights Act 1998. Remedies were covered by section 8 Human Rights Act 1998. Medway Council had made the following concessions:-
Lazarus J said that he would make the following declaration. T’s accommodation by Medway Council for 2 years and 3 months from shortly after placing T in foster care on 11.2.13 until care proceedings were brought on 7.5.15 was unlawful and Medway Council failed to bring proper proceedings in a proper and timely way, in breach of the respect that must be shown to T’s and her mother’s rights to family life and to fair trial under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. In addition, he would award the mother and T, £20,000 each.
Surrey Personal Injury and Child Abuse Compensation Claims – Human Rights
FACTS:-
These were applications by a child and her mother under the Human Rights Act for declarations and damages for breaches of their rights to respect for their family life under Article 8 and to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The mother was a foreign national who claimed to be a victim of human trafficking. She had suffered an extremely serious episode of depression with psychotic features in early 2013 resulting in detention in hospital. She had a child in June 2015 and suffered further psychotic illness. She was currently at a psychiatric mother and baby unit. She also had a learning difficulty. T had been born in 2008 and had first come to the notice of Medway Council in 2013. A social worker visited the mother in August 2013 and expressed concerns about her mental capacity. However, no assessment was undertaken until two years later. The social worker’s intention was to obtain the mother’s consent for T to be accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. No valid section 20 agreement was ever obtained.
JUDGMENT:-
Judge Lazarus said the mother’s and T’s application was brought under section 7(1)(b) Human Rights Act 1998. The unlawful act was covered by section 6(1) Human Rights Act 1998. Remedies were covered by section 8 Human Rights Act 1998. Medway Council had made the following concessions:-
- It had not established the mother’s capacity in a timely manner.
- There was little consideration of T’s legal status for a period between 03.10.13 until mid-January 2015.
- There was a lack of management oversight to ensure that T’s case was considered by the Legal Gateway Panel after the LAC Review on 08.07.2014. There was a delay in the consideration of the commencement of proceedings and therefore a delay in bringing the matter before the court.
Lazarus J said that he would make the following declaration. T’s accommodation by Medway Council for 2 years and 3 months from shortly after placing T in foster care on 11.2.13 until care proceedings were brought on 7.5.15 was unlawful and Medway Council failed to bring proper proceedings in a proper and timely way, in breach of the respect that must be shown to T’s and her mother’s rights to family life and to fair trial under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. In addition, he would award the mother and T, £20,000 each.