Haley, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Harrow

Permission to seek judicial review requires an arguable legal error in the challenged conduct. A Child Protection Conference is not, for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention, a tribunal determining civil rights. Judicial review is also inappropriate where the proposed relief would serve no useful purpose or would reopen matters already addressed in related family proceedings. An alternative complaints process does not cure the absence of an arguable legal error. The court must decide the application on the relevant legal material and may disregard undisclosed submissions.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against Munby J’s refusal of permission to seek judicial review of a Child Protection Conference convened by the London Borough of Harrow. The conference had placed his daughter on the child protection register for emotional abuse and decided that no further investigation into alleged sexual abuse was required.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, breaches of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention, and failures to investigate material concerning his daughter. A renewed application for permission had previously been refused on paper. The central issues were whether the Conference’s conduct disclosed an arguable legal error and whether Article 6 applied to the Conference.

1. Application refused. The applicant had not shown any arguable legal error in the conduct of the Child Protection Conference or in the council’s handling of the matters placed before it.
2. The essential question in judicial review was whether the challenged conduct was arguably flawed by legal error. The court had seen nothing to justify departing from Munby J’s careful reasoning that no such error was disclosed.
3. Article 6 of the European Convention did not apply. A Child Protection Conference was not a tribunal within Article 6 and was not concerned with determining civil rights. The decision in R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte L, concerning a blanket prohibition on solicitors attending child protection conferences, did not establish the contrary proposition.
4. The applicant’s concerns about his daughter’s condition did not themselves establish a judicial review claim. He had to show that the Conference or the council failed properly to investigate the matter it was required to consider.
5. Even substantial doubts about the suitability of the Area Child Protection Committee’s complaints procedure would not alter the result, because the proposed judicial review claim disclosed no arguable legal error. The proposed relief was also overtaken by subsequent family-court proceedings and the passage of time.
6. The court disregarded the respondent’s skeleton argument because it had apparently not been supplied to the applicant. The application was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 16 January 2001, Lord Justice Laws refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Munby J refused the renewed application for permission to seek judicial review on 25 May 2000.