Hinds v Liverpool County Court & Ors

Judicial decisions made within jurisdiction cannot generally be challenged by a civil action, even where alleged to be wrong, unfair, negligent, malicious or corrupt. The appropriate remedies are ordinarily appeal or judicial review. The Human Rights Act 1998 preserves that position in relation to judicial acts.

Witness immunity protects evidence given in court and the preparation of reports for use in court. It extends to experts and prevents civil claims based on evidence that is allegedly negligent, defamatory or false. A body whose primary functions are to assist the court and protect children does not ordinarily owe a duty of care to a parent in respect of its reports. Police operational duties do not ordinarily create a duty of care to a parent to undertake childcare risk assessments following an arrest. Claims also require actionable damage and must comply with limitation periods.

The claimant, the father of three children involved in care and adoption proceedings, brought proceedings against Liverpool County Court, Liverpool City Council, CAFCASS, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and a psychologist. He alleged negligence, defamation, breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and other wrongdoing arising from earlier family proceedings, reports prepared for those proceedings, the care of his youngest child and the police response to the arrest of the child’s mother.

The defendants applied to strike out the claim and for summary judgment. The claimant’s pleaded case, together with further statements ordered to be treated as part of that case for the applications, was considered. The central issues were whether the claims were legally sustainable, whether immunity, absence of duty or damage defeated them, and whether they were time-barred.

1. Disposition. The claims against all five defendants were struck out and dismissed. The court considered the pleadings sufficiently intelligible for the applications, despite their length and unconventional form.
2. Judicial immunity. Judges acting within or purporting to act within jurisdiction, and their employer, cannot be sued for judicial acts at common law. The rule applies despite allegations that the decision was wrong, unfair, careless, malicious or corrupt. The remedy for an erroneous decision is ordinarily an appeal or, where appropriate, judicial review. Section 2(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 reinforced the immunity in respect of judicial responsibilities and the execution of the judicial process.
3. Human rights claims against the court. Sections 6, 7 and 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not materially alter the position. The earlier family proceedings were fair, the claimant had been represented or had the opportunity to participate, and he had not appealed. There was no arguable breach of Articles 3, 6, 8, 13 or 14 of the Convention. Article 8 required the interests of parent and child to be read together, and any interference had been lawful and directed to the protection of the children.
4. Local authority claims. The council was bound by the family court’s orders. The claimant had not supplied an address during a material period and had not shown an Article 8 breach. No negligence claim was available to him without personal injury, and he could not sue on behalf of the child because he lacked the relevant care, guardianship, control or custody.
5. Witness and expert immunity. Evidence given in court and reports prepared for use in court were protected by witness immunity. This applied to CAFCASS and the psychologist. Perjury did not create a civil cause of action. CAFCASS also owed no duty of care to the claimant because its primary duties were to the court and the child, and its evidence was challengeable in the family proceedings.
6. Police duties. Applying the approach in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Brookes v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Caparo Industries v Dickman, no duty of care was owed to the claimant. There was insufficient proximity, no sufficient foreseeability of harm and no public-policy basis for imposing a duty requiring the police to undertake a childcare risk assessment whenever a parent was arrested.
7. Limitation. The defamation, negligence, contractual and Convention claims were, in any event, substantially out of time. The court therefore did not consider an extension under section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998.