A Ward of Court, Re

Wardship does not give a child immunity from the ordinary exercise of statutory powers by another public authority. The wardship court cannot intervene on the merits in an area entrusted by Parliament to that authority. There is no general rule requiring judicial consent before the police interview a ward of court. Such a rule is inconsistent with the A v Liverpool City Council principle and with the principle that wardship confers no privilege over other children. In urgent cases, police and comparable agencies may follow their ordinary statutory procedures, provided the relevant legislative framework is complied with. The person caring for the child should inform the wardship court at the earliest practicable opportunity. Existing guidance in PD12D was materially unsatisfactory and required urgent reconsideration.

The court considered a teenager who was both the subject of local-authority proceedings and a ward of court. An officer of the Security Service had approached the teenager in the course of exercising statutory functions. The local authority suggested that prior court authority had been required and that the officer might otherwise be in contempt.

The President had already made orders reciting that the Security Service was not required to obtain the court’s permission to fulfil its statutory functions in relation to the ward. He used the case to address the wider legal position concerning police officers, the Security Service, Immigration Enforcement and other investigatory, enforcement or regulatory agencies.

1. Wardship principles. The wardship court cannot exercise its powers to intervene on the merits in an area of concern entrusted by Parliament to another public authority. Wardship also does not confer a privilege or immunity unavailable to children who are not wards. These principles are derived from A v Liverpool City Council and related authority.
2. Police interviews. The asserted rule requiring judicial consent before the police interview a ward was first stated in In re S (Minors) (Wardship: Police Investigation), without consideration of the governing principles. In later cases the point was conceded or left unargued. The rule is irreconcilable with the limits of wardship jurisdiction and has no proper foundation. The contrary observations in In re R (Wardship: Criminal Proceedings) were not determinative because the relevant point had not been properly argued.
3. Operational guidance. The guidance given by Sir Stephen Brown P in Re G; Re R Note (Wards) (Police Interviews) was the appropriate practical approach. Where a suspect is arrested or urgent action is required, the police may follow their normal procedures, subject to the requirements applicable to juveniles. The person caring for the ward should notify the court promptly. The same approach applies, with necessary adaptation, to the Security Service and agencies not governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
4. PD12D. Paragraph 5 of PD12D carried forward the earlier Practice Directions but failed to reflect the later guidance and remained materially unclear. The Family Procedure Rule Committee was urged to reconsider it urgently.
5. Other statutory arrangements. A child accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 or subject to a care order under sections 31 or 38 does not thereby acquire a privilege over other children. Unless the agency’s legislative framework requires consultation or consent, the relevant agency, rather than the local authority, decides how to exercise its statutory powers.

The orders already made were maintained. The Security Service was not required to obtain the permission of the wardship court to fulfil its statutory functions in relation to the ward.