A Local Authority vs D and Others

This case concerned an application by a mother ('M') in public law proceedings to determine how she could attend court hearings despite being barred due to a risk assessment under the HMCTS Protocol for Managing Potentially Violent People ('PVP Protocol').

TLDR:

• Mother ('M') barred from court due to a risk assessment after bringing a knife to court.
• M applied to attend future hearings in person despite the bar.
• Court balanced security needs with M's right to access justice.
• Specific security measures were outlined to allow M's attendance.

The case involved four children aged between 4 and 15 years old, with the Local Authority ('LA') planning for the children to be removed from their parents under a care order, possibly leading to adoption for the younger children. This was strongly resisted by their mother ('M').

On 19 January 2024, M attended the court building without a scheduled hearing and handed in a knife to security. This incident led to her being barred from the court building under the PVP Protocol. M's history included drug misuse and mental health instability, diagnosed as borderline personality disorder.

Following the incident, M was barred from attending a Case Management Hearing on 1 February 2024 but was represented effectively. M applied for reinstatement of her access to the court building, arguing that remote attendance was unworkable due to inadequate facilities and privacy issues at her accommodation.

The court acknowledged the potential risk posed by M but also recognized the necessity for her to participate in the proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of balancing security concerns with M's right to access justice under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court outlined specific security measures to allow M's attendance at future hearings, including thorough security checks, constant supervision by security guards, and restrictions on her movements within the court building. These measures aimed to protect all court users while ensuring M could participate effectively in the proceedings.

The court noted that the PVP Protocol had been updated following a serious assault on a judge in November 2023, highlighting the need for stringent security measures. However, the court also stressed the importance of access to justice, particularly in cases involving the potential removal of children from their parents.

The court concluded that the outlined measures represented a fair balance between competing rights and a proportionate response to the potential threat posed by M. The court emphasized that these measures were specific to the circumstances of this case and that different cases might require different solutions.

Legal representatives: Laura Doherty for the Applicant, Edmund Jackson for the First Respondent, Paul Caulfield for the Second Respondent, Grace Morton for the Third Respondent, Eleanor Irons for the Fourth Respondent, David Ashman for the Fifth to Seventh Respondents, Lewis Sharp for the Eighth Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Peel

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWFC 61