KH AGAINST CHILDREN'S REPORTER [2016] ScotSC 18 (08 March 2016)

KH AGAINST CHILDREN'S REPORTER [2016] ScotSC 18 (08 March 2016)

The sheriff principal held that the sheriff applied the correct legal test under section 67(2)(e), that the findings in fact established a likelihood of harm to the child IM from exposure to KH and RM, and that the amendment of supporting facts was properly allowed as it reflected evidence already led and did not cause unfair prejudice. The appeal was refused and the case remitted for further disposal.

Citation
[2016] ScotSC 18
Parties
Pursuer: K H; Defender: Children’s Reporter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 163(1)(a) of the Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Grounds for Referral Under Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 Section 67(2)(e), Amendment of Supporting Facts, Procedural Fairness, Risk of Harm to Child, Exposure to Harmful Conduct
Child Protection Family Law Administrative Law Grounds for Referral Under Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 Section 67(2)(e) Amendment of Supporting Facts Procedural Fairness Risk of Harm to Child Exposure to Harmful Conduct

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K H

Pursuer

Children’s Reporter

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 163(1)(a) of the Children’s Hearings (scotland) Act 2011 / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff applied the correct test under section 67(2)(e) of the 2011 Act
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff’s findings in fact were sufficient to establish the ground for referral
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in allowing amendment of supporting facts at the stage of closing submissions

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff principal held that the sheriff applied the correct legal test under section 67(2)(e), that the findings in fact established a likelihood of harm to the child IM from exposure to KH and RM, and that the amendment of supporting facts was properly allowed as it reflected evidence already led and did not cause unfair prejudice. The appeal was refused and the case remitted for further disposal.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Questions 1, 3, and 4 in the stated case answered in the affirmative; question 2 answered in the negative
  • Case remitted to the sheriff with direction to remit to the children’s hearing for disposal