Re A (Minor) V

In appropriate and exceptional family cases, the court may direct electronic tagging as part of protective arrangements where it is necessary to secure the child’s welfare or prevent changes in circumstances relevant to the proceedings. Such arrangements will ordinarily require the tagged person’s consent, or may be imposed as a condition where non-compliance would lead to alternative safeguards. Electronic tagging is unlikely to be suitable except in very few cases. The judgment also explains the practical information and timing required to implement a tagging order through the National Offender Management Service.

The parents were involved in proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction concerning their child’s care and future. The mother had twice wrongfully removed the child from England, and the child had been returned pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction 1980. Pending investigation of the wider issues, the question was whether the child should spend substantial interim periods with the mother while safeguards addressed the father’s concern that there might be a further removal.

The parents agreed that the mother would be subject to a curfew supported by electronic tagging while the child was in her care. Counsel asked the court to describe the availability and implementation of tagging arrangements in family proceedings.

1. The court recorded the parties’ agreement that the child should spend substantial interim periods with each parent, subject to the mother’s curfew being supported by electronic tagging.

2. Following Re C (Abduction: Interim Directions: Accommodation by Local Authority) [2003] EWHC 3065 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 653, the court confirmed that a direction for electronic tagging may be made under section 5 of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 where it is necessary to secure the child’s welfare or prevent changes in circumstances relevant to determination of the application.

3. The court emphasised that tagging is unlikely to be appropriate except in very few cases. It would ordinarily be ordered with the individual’s consent, although it might be imposed as a condition where non-compliance would result in alternative protective safeguards.

4. The court explained that tagging monitors whether the wearer remains at specified premises during scheduled periods and reports absence or removal of the tag. The National Office for the Management of Offenders had established a procedure for family cases.

5. An order must be sealed by 3.30 pm on the day before implementation. It must identify the person, curfew address, installation arrangements, monitoring schedule, curfew dates and times, and the officer to whom breaches or interference with the tag must be reported. A specimen electronic tagging order was annexed.

First-instance decision. No earlier judicial decision in the same proceedings is stated.