Appiatse & Anor v London Borough of Enfield

Judicial review of a child-protection registration decision is available in principle, but it is an exceptional and rare remedy. The court reviews the information available to the child protection conference and asks whether there was a rational basis for concluding that the child was at continuing risk of significant harm. It does not decide whether the parents were in fact guilty of neglect.

Where a properly conducted conference has considered the relevant evidence and the parents’ representations, disagreement with its assessment will not establish Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness. An effective statutory or administrative complaints procedure may also justify withholding judicial review, particularly where it can lead to reconsideration by a differently chaired conference.

The claimants, the parents of a child referred to as T, sought judicial review of the defendant local authority’s decision at a child protection conference on 27 January 2006 to place T on the Child Protection Register under the category of neglect.

They alleged that the decision was irrational, that the conference applied the wrong test, and that their views and the evidence were not properly considered. T was later removed from the register, but permission to proceed was granted because the claim remained significant to the parents. The local authority also relied on an available two-stage complaints procedure. The issues were whether the registration decision was unlawful and whether judicial review should in any event be withheld because an alternative remedy existed.

1. Judicial review threshold. The claim was dismissed. Following R v Harrow London Borough Council ex parte D [1990] Fam 133, judicial review of child-protection registration is available in principle but should be rare. The court must allow the conference to perform its protective function, while recognising the importance of the child’s welfare.
2. Rationality. The relevant question was whether there was a rational basis for concluding that the threshold for registration had been met. The court considered the information available at the conference, rather than deciding whether the parents had in fact neglected T. Evidence of severe malnutrition, nutritional rickets, missed appointments and a failure to secure appropriate medical attention provided sufficient material for the conference to conclude that T was at continuing risk of significant harm.
3. Procedural fairness and the applicable test. The parents’ views were considered, there was an evidential basis for the decision, and the allegation that the chair had bullied the professionals was not made out. Read fairly, the conference had asked whether T remained at continuing risk of significant harm and whether the case involved parental neglect. The use of different wording in the chair’s statement did not establish that an erroneous two-stage test had been applied.
4. Alternative remedy. The complaints procedure could lead to reconsideration by a differently chaired conference, an earlier review conference, or confirmation of the existing position. It was therefore capable of providing an effective remedy and should have been followed instead of judicial review. This conclusion was supported by R v Hampshire County Council ex parte H [1999] 2 FLR 359. The claim was dismissed.

Not stated in the judgment.