The Father vs Worcestershire County Council

This case involved an appeal by the father against the dismissal of his habeas corpus application, which sought the return of his children from the care of Worcestershire County Council.

TLDR:

• The father applied for a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of his children.
• The application was dismissed by Ms Justice Russell in the Family Division.
• The Court of Appeal found the hearing was unfair and set aside the dismissal.
• The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the habeas corpus application on legal grounds.

The father, acting in person, sought a writ of habeas corpus to secure the return of his children, who were placed in the care of Worcestershire County Council by a Family Court order. The initial order was made by DJ Solomon under section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989, following findings of domestic violence, criminal history, and substance abuse by the father.

Ms Justice Russell dismissed the father's habeas corpus application without a full hearing, stating that the application was ill-conceived and that the proper recourse was through an appeal or other applications under the Children Act.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Lewison, Lady Justice King, and Lady Justice Falk, found that the hearing before Ms Justice Russell was fundamentally unfair. The father was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, which violated principles of justice as articulated in previous case law.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The judge's conduct in the original hearing was found to be incompatible with the administration of justice, as she had apparently made up her mind before hearing the father's arguments.

Despite setting aside the dismissal on grounds of unfair hearing, the Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the father's habeas corpus application. The court found that the father's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, which hinged on the threshold condition under section 31(2) of the Children Act, was essentially a challenge to the factual findings of the District Judge.

The Court of Appeal noted that the proper procedure for challenging such findings was through an appeal or other applications under the Children Act, not through a habeas corpus application. The court also referenced previous judgments indicating that children in foster care under a care order are not considered detained in a manner that would justify a writ of habeas corpus.

The court concluded that there was no prospect of a different outcome if the case were remitted for rehearing. Therefore, while the initial dismissal was set aside due to the unfair hearing, the father's application was dismissed on legal grounds.

It was noted that discussions were ongoing for increased contact between the father and the children, with the aim of potentially returning the children to his care. The court's decision did not affect these ongoing discussions.