Webster, R (on the application of) v Swindon Local Safeguarding Children Board & Anor

A Local Safeguarding Children Board must conduct a Serious Case Review promptly and comprehensively where the statutory criteria are met. A substantial delay or phased process that materially diminishes the review’s practical value requires a compelling, properly formulated and substantiated justification. Pending civil proceedings do not ordinarily justify waiting for judgment, since a Serious Case Review has a different purpose and can address evidential conflicts without determining civil liability. A Board must actively investigate and seek to resolve any asserted obstacle to frank participation, including an objection based on liability insurance.

The claimant, a child seriously injured in an assault at school, challenged the defendant Board’s decision to conduct a Serious Case Review in phases. The first phase was confined principally to lessons arising after the assault, while consideration of the circumstances before and during the assault was deferred until completion of related civil proceedings brought against the school. The claimant contended that the statutory purpose of the review required an immediate and comprehensive examination. The central issue was whether the Board had acted lawfully in substantially deferring the comprehensive review because of the pending litigation and anticipated constraints on the school’s participation.

1. Claim allowed. The Board’s decision to proceed with a phased review was quashed. The Board was directed to conduct a Serious Case Review in accordance with the judgment. The claimant was awarded his costs, subject to detailed assessment, with no interim payment.
2. The incident fell within the statutory criteria for a Serious Case Review. The legislation and guidance required prompt initiation and expeditious completion. Given the seriousness of the injury and the apparent racist overtones, the Board was required to initiate a comprehensive review addressing all identified issues.
3. Where a proposed procedure would substantially defer a comprehensive review, the Board needed a compelling reason that was well formulated and properly substantiated. The decision to confine the initial phase to post-incident measures deprived the review of much of its practical value, because those measures could not be assessed rationally without examining the conditions preceding the assault and the events of the assault itself.
4. The pending civil proceedings did not provide sufficient justification. The risk of witness contamination identified in the guidance principally concerned criminal proceedings. A Serious Case Review had a different purpose from the civil action: it sought objectively to establish what happened, why it happened and how recurrence could be reduced, without apportioning blame or liability. It could ordinarily form views despite conflicting accounts and did not reasonably need to await the civil judgment.
5. The Board’s belief that the school would not participate fully was initially no more than conjecture. After the school raised an objection based on its liability insurers, the Board simply accepted it. In the circumstances, the Board was required to ascertain the precise obstacle and take active steps to resolve it, including explaining that the review was not intended to determine fault or liability. The absence of those steps meant that the reason for further delay was not properly substantiated.