L.M. & J.H. v. THE AUTHORITY REPORTER [2010] ScotSC 118 (02 July 2010)

L.M. & J.H. v. THE AUTHORITY REPORTER [2010] ScotSC 118 (02 July 2010)

The parents' Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights were not breached because they were present, legally represented, had access to all relevant information, and did not challenge the sexualised behaviour allegation at the Children's Hearing. The Hearing was entitled to consider such information under Section 69(1), and the established grounds alone justified the decision. The sheriff did not err in refusing to hear evidence. The statutory scheme, as applied, was ECHR compliant. The appeals fail except as to the technical point in JH's stated case question 7.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 118
Parties
Pursuer: LM; Pursuer: JH; Defender: The Authority Reporter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Children's Hearing Decision (supervision Requirement) Under Section 51(1) Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Sheriff Principal's Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeals refused except as to question 7 in JH's stated case, which is answered in the affirmative; all other questions answered in the negative; case remitted to the sheriff to proceed as accords.
Legal Topics
Children's Hearings, Supervision Requirements, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Hearing), Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life), Procedural Fairness, Effective Participation, Grounds of Referral, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Children's Hearings Supervision Requirements Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Hearing) Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life) Procedural Fairness +3 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LM

Pursuer

JH

Pursuer

The Authority Reporter

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Children's Hearing Decision (supervision Requirement) Under Section 51(1) Children (scotland) Act 1995 / Sheriff Principal's Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Children's Hearing breached the parents' Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights by relying on untested allegations (sexualised behaviour) not established in the grounds of referral
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in refusing to hear evidence on disputed facts
  3. 3 Whether the Children's Hearing's decision was justified and adequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The parents' Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights were not breached because they were present, legally represented, had access to all relevant information, and did not challenge the sexualised behaviour allegation at the Children's Hearing. The Hearing was entitled to consider such information under Section 69(1), and the established grounds alone justified the decision. The sheriff did not err in refusing to hear evidence. The statutory scheme, as applied, was ECHR compliant. The appeals fail except as to the technical point in JH's stated case question 7.

Court Disposition

Appeals refused except as to question 7 in JH's stated case, which is answered in the affirmative; all other questions answered in the negative; case remitted to the sheriff to proceed as accords.

Orders

  • Questions 1, 4, 5, and 7 in LM's stated case answered in the negative.
  • Questions 1 to 6 in JH's stated case answered in the negative; question 7 answered in the affirmative.