Mohammed, R (on the application of) v Local Safeguarding Children's Board For Islington & Anor

The expression “abuse or neglect of a child” in regulation 5(2)(a) of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006 does not ordinarily include a public body's failure to discharge safeguarding duties where that body was not caring for or looking after the child. A serious case review may nevertheless be justified where the child was in the authority's actual care and abuse or neglect is known or suspected. Academic judicial review claims require particular caution. They should proceed only where there is a good public-interest reason, such as numerous similar cases requiring determination, and where the issue is not materially fact-sensitive. A broader policy remit for serious case reviews should first be considered by the Secretary of State.

The claimant, whose daughter had died after falling from a high-rise block, sought judicial review of the Local Safeguarding Children Board's refusal to commission a serious case review. The claim was later amended to seek a declaration that neglect under regulation 5(2)(a) included neglect by a public body. After referral to the National Panel of Independent Experts, the Board agreed to commission a review, including consideration of institutional neglect. The claimant nevertheless pursued the proposed declaration. The central issues were whether the amended claim had a reasonable prospect of success, whether it was academic, and whether any wider interpretation of the Regulations should first be addressed by the Secretary of State.

1. Permission refused. The amended claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The permission threshold required an arguable case meriting full investigation at an oral hearing.
2. On the proper construction of section 14 of the Children Act 2004 and regulation 5 of the Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006, “abuse or neglect of a child” in regulation 5(2)(a) referred to abuse or neglect of the child, rather than neglect by a public body in failing to discharge its safeguarding duties when it was not caring for or looking after the child. Regulation 5(2) had to be read as a whole. The concern about how the authority and its partners had worked together to safeguard the child would otherwise be rendered unnecessary.
3. If the child was in the actual care of the authority when death or serious harm occurred, and abuse or neglect was known or suspected, an SCR might be justified.
4. The claim was academic because the Board had commissioned an SCR and had confirmed that institutional neglect would be considered. Applying the guidance in Zoolife International Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and R (Raw) v London Borough of Lambeth, the court should entertain an academic public-law claim only with considerable caution and for a good reason in the public interest. The proposed issue was not shown to arise in a large number of similar cases, and its resolution lacked a sufficient concrete factual framework.
5. The question whether the remit of SCRs should be widened was principally a policy issue for the Secretary of State for Education. The claim was premature until the Secretary of State had considered the issue and/or the SCR had been concluded.
6. The court did not need to determine delay. Had it done so, it would have refused an extension under CPR 54.5(1) and section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.