Ahmad v London Borough of Brent & Ors

A local authority responsible for child protection owed no duty of care in negligence to a parent whose interests conflicted with those of the child being protected. A prisoner recalled under the statutory power to revoke a life licence remains detained pursuant to the original sentence, unless the recall is quashed or detention becomes unlawful under the Convention. Delay in a Parole Board review does not itself invalidate detention, although exceptionally prolonged systemic failure may do so. Article 5(4) requires a speedy decision, assessed in context. Where delay resulted from necessary reports not being supplied by other authorities, the Board was not in breach. An acknowledged and remedied Article 8 interference did not require further relief where no additional remedy was just, appropriate and necessary.

The claimant, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his eldest daughter, was released on licence subject to restrictions on contact with his surviving daughter. He was recalled after probation and social services reported frequent and allegedly unauthorised contact and assessed risks to the daughter.

He brought claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment and under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention against the local authority, probation service, Secretary of State and Parole Board. The defendants sought strike-out or summary judgment. The central issues were whether the recall and detention were unlawful, whether the defendants owed relevant duties, whether the Parole Board acted too slowly, and whether any further Article 8 remedy was required.

1. First and Second Defendants. The local authority’s primary responsibility was to protect the claimant’s daughter. Applying D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373, it owed no duty of care to the suspected parent where the parent’s interests did not coincide with the child’s interests. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council v C [2010] EWHC 62 (QB) was distinguishable because the claimant there was not suspected of abusing the children. The negligence, misfeasance and Article 8 claims therefore had no real prospect of success.
2. The probation service’s alleged duty to check and provide accurate information was arguable, but there was no reasonable basis for alleging breach. The evidence showed that contact beyond the licence condition had not been authorised.
3. Secretary of State. Under section 32(2) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Secretary of State could recall a life prisoner where recall appeared expedient in the public interest. The claimant’s detention after recall remained pursuant to the original life sentence. Applying Dunn v Parole Board [2009] 1 WLR 728 and Walker v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] 1 AC 553, delay in the Parole Board process did not itself make detention unlawful.
4. The recall decision was supported by the risk information available and was not irrational. The court relied on the limited review approach explained in R (Biggs) v SSHD [2002] EWHC 1012 (Admin) and R (Hare) v SSHD [2003] EWHC 3336 (Admin). The Article 5(1) claim consequently failed.
5. Article 8. The Secretary of State apologised for restrictions that continued after the daughter reached majority and extended the apology to the end of detention. In the circumstances, no further remedy under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was just, appropriate or necessary.
6. Parole Board. Article 5(4) required the release application to be decided speedily. The Board had actively managed the case, but hearings were deferred because necessary reports and documents were not supplied by other authorities. Applying Faulkner v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board [2010] EWCA Civ 1434, there was no unjustified delay.
7. The applications were allowed in substance. All claims were struck out except the part of the claim against the Third Defendant concerning detention from 24 to 31 August 2007. Amendment applications were allowed, subject to the stated adjournment concerning a proposed negligence claim.