Birmingham City Council v SK

Where the relief sought would have no bearing on the orders required, the court should not determine an important jurisdictional issue that has become academic. In child sexual exploitation cases, the court may consider whether existing protective measures make an injunction unnecessary. A detailed multi-agency protocol may provide valuable guidance for assessing information, verifying alleged perpetrators, evaluating risk and selecting an appropriate remedy. The judgment also records that the statutory scheme for sexual risk orders permits interim orders through the magistrates’ court.

The local authority issued care proceedings concerning a 15-year-old girl who was considered at risk of child sexual exploitation. It also obtained, and then discharged, an injunction against a man who had been wrongly identified as a possible perpetrator.

The local authority later sought permission to withdraw its application for injunctive relief because the child’s circumstances had improved and a supervision order was addressing the remaining concerns. The parties had prepared extensive submissions on whether the inherent jurisdiction could protect unidentified children from sexual exploitation, and on the relationship between that jurisdiction and sexual risk orders. The central jurisdictional issue had become academic because no injunction was sought against any individual.

1. Application granted. Permission was given to withdraw the application for injunctive relief. The child’s remaining difficulties and risks were being managed under the supervision order made on 14 December 2015, and no injunction was required.
2. The competing approaches in Birmingham City Council v Riaz and others [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam) and London Borough of Redbridge v SNA [2015] EWHC 2140 (Fam) concerned an important issue about the protective reach of the inherent jurisdiction. However, because determining that issue could not affect the order to be made, it would be inappropriate to express a concluded view. The approach required by Re X (Court of Protection) [2015] EWCA Civ 599 was followed.
3. The court nevertheless recorded the parties’ principal submissions. They raised the interaction between the inherent jurisdiction, statutory powers and the Sexual Risk Order regime, but no ruling was made on whether a non-subject child injunction could lawfully be granted.
4. The agreed protocol between the local authority and the police was commended. It required agencies to verify referrals and information, distinguish intelligence from evidence, assess risk and consider the range of available disruption measures, including a sexual risk order and other legal remedies.
5. The discussion in Redbridge concerning the apparent absence of interim sexual risk orders should not be misunderstood. The statutory provisions, read with the guidance, permit a magistrates’ court to make an interim sexual risk order pending determination of the final application.

• High Court (Family Division): Care proceedings were issued on 12 March 2015. An injunction was granted on 24 March 2015 and subsequently discharged after the alleged perpetrator was found to have been wrongly identified. Permission to withdraw the injunctive-relief application was granted in the present judgment.