SO, Re

The court may extend protective orders made in wardship proceedings beyond a young person’s eighteenth birthday where continuing protection is required. The inherent jurisdiction may protect vulnerable young people and adults whether or not they lack mental capacity. Jurisdiction acquired when wardship proceedings began may continue until those proceedings conclude, even if the person later becomes habitually resident abroad. The court must consider whether exercising jurisdiction is appropriate in the circumstances, including the risks created by requiring an application in another country.

The applicant sought continuation of injunctions made during long-running wardship proceedings concerning her daughter, S. The orders protected the applicant and S from threats, harassment, contact and disclosure of their whereabouts. S was approaching eighteen and both she and the applicant were habitually resident in Australia.

The application raised whether the existing protective orders could continue after wardship ended; whether protection could alternatively be granted under the inherent jurisdiction; whether residence abroad or British nationality affected jurisdiction; and what order was appropriate. The respondent, imprisoned in Australia, was given a fair opportunity to respond but opposed the application.

1. Continuation beyond majority. An injunction made during wardship may be extended beyond the ward’s eighteenth birthday. Where the court has found that a young person remains at risk of harm, the protective jurisdiction must be capable of continuing protection into adulthood. The principle was supported by Re F (Adult: Court’s Jurisdiction) [2001] Fam 38.
2. Inherent jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction is sufficiently flexible to evolve with social needs and social values. It may protect vulnerable young people and adults whether or not they lack capacity. The court adopted the approach in Re SA [2006] EWHC 2942 (Fam), including its recognition that the jurisdiction has no clearly defined theoretical limit. The observations of Singer J in Re SK [2004] EWHC 3202 (Fam) supported that conclusion.
3. Human rights. When exercising wardship or inherent jurisdiction, the court, as a public authority, must have regard to Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998.
4. Jurisdiction and forum. Jurisdiction acquired when the proceedings began on the basis of habitual residence continued until their conclusion, despite the later move to Australia. British nationality could provide an additional basis, but the question remained whether jurisdiction should be exercised in the particular circumstances. The court rejected Australia as the only appropriate forum because requiring the applicant or S to apply there would expose them to the risks which the injunctions were intended to avoid. This approach was consistent with Re A (Children) (Jurisdiction: Return of Child) [2013] UKSC 60.
5. Application of principles. The history of convictions for inciting the applicant’s murder, continuing threats and possible knowledge of the family’s location established a very serious continuing risk. S remained at risk of emotional harm. An order was therefore made extending protection until further order, including protection for the applicant as necessary to protect S. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s recoverable costs.