R (H) v Kingston Upon Hull City Council  EWHC 388 (Admin) (HHJ Jeremy Richardson QC): A judicial review claim brought by the mother of two children who sought to impugn a local authority's decision to remove her children from the care of a family member into foster care without consultation or judicial review for that course of action. The Court was asked to determine (i) whether it is permissible to bring a judicial review challenge to a local authority decision when there are extant care proceedings and an interim care order in force; and (ii) what the extent of the duty to consult is when there is an ICO in force. The Court held that (i) judicial review is the appropriate course of action only where there is no other appropriate remedy; such a claim may succeed if it can be shown the local authority acted unlawfully; (ii) there is a duty to consult family members and others but the weight to be placed on the views of those consulted is for the lcoal authority to determine. Click here for judgment.
R (HC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Commissioner for Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 982 (Admin) (Moses LJ and Kenneth Parker J): Test case about the entitlement of a 17 year old child to an appropriate adult and assistance on arrest. The Court held that 17 year old children are not to be treated as adults. It is inconsistent with the rights of the child under article 8, ECHR to treat him, a 17 year old, as an adult in detention. Insofar as the PACE Code C permited this, that is in breach of the Secretary of State's obligations under the ECHR. Whilst the Court felt it unnecessary to address article 6, the facts of the case demonstrated the vulnerability of 17 year olds and their need for assistance. Click here for judgment.