Local Authority v W & Ors

In care proceedings, relevant information must ordinarily be disclosed because non-disclosure is exceptional and requires a compelling justification. Where confidential police intelligence materially affects the threshold or welfare assessment, the court must balance child protection, police investigations and informant safety against the parties’ right to a fair hearing. The substance of an allegation must generally be disclosed to the person whose credibility and evidence are in issue. Wider underlying material may be disclosed to that person’s solicitors under an undertaking restricting onward disclosure. A local authority receiving sensitive police information remains responsible for investigating the underlying concerns without compromising confidentiality and should seek urgent court directions if that cannot be achieved.

A local authority involved in care proceedings received confidential police information suggesting that a drug supplier was living at the mother’s address. The police objected to disclosure because it might identify an informant, prejudice an ongoing investigation and inhibit future inter-agency co-operation. The information had been shared with the children’s guardian but not with the mother or the other parties.

The local authority sought directions on whether the information could be disclosed to the mother, her legal advisers and potentially the other parties. The central issues were the relationship between confidential police intelligence and the local authority’s duty to establish the care threshold, and the extent to which disclosure could be restricted consistently with a fair hearing.

1. Disclosure and the threshold. The local authority bore the burden of proving the statutory threshold on the balance of probabilities. If it relied on the alleged presence of a drug dealer in the mother’s household, it had to prove both the person’s presence and that he was a drug dealer. The police information was not evidence and might be inaccurate; the evidence available included the social workers’ observations.
2. Balancing exercise. Non-disclosure of relevant information in care proceedings was the exception rather than the rule and should be ordered only where the case for it was compelling. The court had to balance the mother’s right to a fair hearing against preserving the integrity of the police investigation, protecting the informant and maintaining effective inter-agency child-protection co-operation.
3. Disclosure to the mother. The mother had to be told the substance of the allegation. Her instructions were required, her credibility was in issue and she would need to answer the allegation in evidence. It was impermissible to adjudicate on the issue without giving her notice of it. The information could be disclosed in a redacted or summarised form which did not identify the source or compromise the investigation.
4. Disclosure to solicitors. Applying the approach in Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court v K [1965] AC 201, the mother’s solicitors could receive the wider material generated by the application if they undertook not to disclose anything beyond the permitted substance to the mother without further court permission. The question of disclosure to the fathers and their advisers was reserved to the circuit judge.
5. Further investigation. Receipt of confidential police information did not prevent the local authority or guardian from making appropriate inquiries using independent observations and existing arrangements. If investigation could not be completed without breaching confidentiality, the local authority had to return to court urgently, initially if necessary without notice to the other parties except the guardian.
6. The local authority was permitted to disclose to the mother and her solicitors the substance of the allegation, and to disclose the wider application documents to the solicitors subject to the undertaking. Disclosure to the other parties was reserved.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.