Key Facts
- •Father's application for writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of children dismissed by Russell J.
- •Children were previously placed in care of Worcestershire County Council by DJ Solomon due to domestic violence, father's criminal history, and drug/alcohol abuse.
- •Father appeared in person and argued that DJ Solomon's order was made without jurisdiction.
- •Russell J's dismissal of the application was deemed unfair due to lack of proper hearing.
- •Father's appeal was based on section 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and CPR Rule 52.3 (1) (a) (ii).
Legal Principles
A party must be allowed to bring their application to court and make their case.
Labrouche v Frey [2012] EWCA Civ 881, [2012] 1 WLR 3160 at [22]
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done; a closed mind before hearing argument is incompatible with the administration of justice.
Re S-W (Care Proceedings: Case Management Hearings) [2015] EWCA Civ 27, [2015] 2 FLR 136 at [43]
An unfair trial necessitates a complete retrial; a judgment from an unfair trial is void.
Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455
Appeal against a care order does not imply acceptance of the order.
S v Haringey LBC [2003] EWHC 2734 (Admin) and Re AB (a child) (Habeas Corpus) [2024] EWCA Civ 105
The writ of habeas corpus is not aimed at situations where a child is living with foster parents under a care order.
S v Haringey LBC [2003] EWHC 2734 (Admin) and Re AB (a child) (Habeas Corpus) [2024] EWCA Civ 105
Outcomes
Russell J's order dismissing the habeas corpus application was set aside due to unfair hearing.
The judge failed to allow the father to present his case, violating fundamental principles of justice.
Father's application for habeas corpus was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal, having heard the father's argument, found that the District Judge's decision was correct as a matter of law, even though the threshold for the care order was not met.