A Local Authority v SK & Anor

Disclosure of findings made in care proceedings is exceptional, but may be ordered where there is a clear and pressing need to protect children or vulnerable adults. The court must balance the child’s welfare, family privacy, confidentiality and frankness in family proceedings, the consequences and publicity of disclosure, the gravity of the conduct, the risk to others, the recipient’s interest and the wider public interest.

Where disclosure is sought by responsible statutory or professional bodies operating under a protective statutory scheme, that framework materially strengthens the case for disclosure. Disclosure should be limited to those who need the information, kept confidential, and accompanied by safeguards against unnecessary publicity.

A local authority applied for permission to disclose findings from earlier care proceedings concerning SK to her employers and the relevant local authority. The findings were that SK had seriously assaulted her eight-year-old daughter, denied responsibility, and fabricated an explanation and supporting letter.

SK worked in a residential care home for vulnerable elderly adults. The application raised the question whether information proved in care proceedings should be disclosed to bodies responsible for protecting vulnerable adults, notwithstanding confidentiality, family privacy, potential employment consequences and SK’s presumed opposition.

1. Disclosure principles. The court had to exercise a balancing discretion. Relevant factors included the child’s welfare, the consequences for the family, the risk of publicity, confidentiality and frankness in children proceedings, the gravity of the conduct, the risk to the public, the pressing need for disclosure, the recipient’s interest and the public interest in disclosure.
2. The child’s welfare was important but not paramount. Where disclosure brought no benefit to the child, the court had to proceed with particular caution. The fact that disclosure might cause loss of employment or other hardship was also significant, but did not determine the application.
3. There was a real and potent risk to vulnerable adults. Vulnerable adults might be dependent on carers and unable to report harm coherently, so the protective considerations were materially comparable to those arising in the care of children, despite the limits of the comparison.
4. The disclosure was supported by the statutory framework under Part V of the Care Standards Act 2000, including the definition of care worker and vulnerable adult and the duty to refer relevant misconduct. The receiving authorities had substantial statutory responsibilities and an established procedure, including an opportunity for the care worker to respond and appeal.
5. The public interest in protecting vulnerable adults outweighed SK’s Article 8 privacy rights and the competing interests in confidentiality. The application was therefore granted, but disclosure was restricted and confidential. The local authority was permitted to disclose the information only for the specified protective purposes, with liberty to apply, and SK was to be informed of the decision and of her right to attend any further hearing.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.