A Ward of Court, Re

A Ward of Court, Re

There is no legal principle or rule requiring judicial consent before the Security Service or police may interview a ward of court; the asserted rule is inconsistent with the A v Liverpool City Council principle and the principle that wardship does not confer privileges over other children. The relevant Practice Directions are outdated and should be urgently reviewed.

Parties
Applicant: Local Authority (name withheld); Respondent: Security Service; Subject: Teenager (ward of court, name withheld)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Interlocutory Judgment on Procedural Issue
Outcome
Declaratory judgment clarifying the law; no contempt found; no criticism of parties.
Legal Topics
Wardship, Police Powers, Security Service Powers, Radicalisation, Judicial Review, Children's Rights
Family Law Public Law Constitutional Law Wardship Police Powers Security Service Powers Radicalisation Judicial Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority (name withheld)

Applicant

Security Service

Respondent

Teenager (ward of court, name withheld)

Subject

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Interlocutory Judgment on Procedural Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial consent is required before the Security Service or police may interview a ward of court
  2. 2 Reconciliation of the 'no important step' principle with the A v Liverpool City Council principle
  3. 3 Whether wardship confers privileges over other children in relation to investigatory actions by public authorities

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal principle or rule requiring judicial consent before the Security Service or police may interview a ward of court; the asserted rule is inconsistent with the A v Liverpool City Council principle and the principle that wardship does not confer privileges over other children. The relevant Practice Directions are outdated and should be urgently reviewed.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment clarifying the law; no contempt found; no criticism of parties.

Orders

  • No requirement for Security Service to obtain court's permission to fulfil statutory functions in relation to the ward.
  • No identification of the ward or local authority permitted in the judgment.