A Local Authority v DG & Ors

Parties to linked care and criminal proceedings must comply with family-court orders requiring a full response to threshold allegations or a narrative statement, even where the criminal defence statement is due later. The timing of the criminal defence statement is irrelevant to the family court’s case-management decision. Practitioners may explain the protection afforded by Children Act 1989, s 98, and the possibility of disclosure into the criminal proceedings. They must not advise a client to withhold, delay or limit compliance with a family-court order. Any issue of prejudice arising from disclosure becomes relevant only if an application for disclosure is made, which must then be determined under the applicable disclosure principles.

Care proceedings were brought concerning a child whose mother had been killed. The child’s father, who was charged with the murder and remanded in custody, was also a respondent to the care proceedings. The local authority sought findings reflecting the criminal allegations.

The parties repeatedly failed to comply with case-management directions. The father also failed to provide a comprehensive response to threshold allegations after receiving advice from his criminal defence team to await preparation of the criminal defence statement. The court considered the proper relationship between the linked proceedings and the effect of s 98 of the Children Act 1989.

1. Case-management compliance. The court endorsed the guidance in Re W (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1177. Family-court orders, including interlocutory case-management directions, must be obeyed strictly and on time. A party unable to comply should apply for an extension before the deadline expires and must notify the court of non-compliance.
2. Full response in care proceedings. A party ordered to file a response to threshold or a narrative statement must comply by the date ordered. Parents and interveners should provide a frank, honest and comprehensive account of relevant matters. It is potentially contemptuous for a practitioner to advise a client not to comply, or not to respond to a particular allegation, whether temporarily or permanently.
3. Relationship with criminal proceedings. Under s 98 of the Children Act 1989, a party is not excused from giving evidence on the ground of self-incrimination, while statements or admissions made in the care proceedings are subject to the statutory restriction on their use in criminal proceedings. The date for serving a criminal defence statement is irrelevant to the date fixed for compliance in the care proceedings.
4. Disclosure and prejudice. Alleged prejudice to a criminal defendant from an earlier or complete response arises only if the police or a co-accused applies for disclosure of family-proceedings material into the criminal proceedings. Any such application must be considered under the principles identified in Re C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) [1997] Fam 76, and the court must avoid trespassing on the criminal court’s jurisdiction.
5. The court ordered the original, fuller threshold response to be filed and served. It criticised the parties’ wholesale failure to comply with directions and emphasised that delay is inimical to the welfare of children.