Senior family judge issues guidance on radicalisation cases

The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has issued guidance on radicalisation cases in the Family Court.

In the guidance, which can be viewed here, Sir James said recent months had seen increasing numbers of children cases coming before the Family Division and the Family Court where there were allegations or suspicions that:

  • children, with their parents or on their own, were planning or attempting or being groomed with a view to travel to parts of Syria controlled by the so-called Islamic State;
  • children had been or were at risk of being radicalised; or
  • children had been or were at risk of being involved in terrorist activities either in this country or abroad.

“Most of these cases have been brought under the inherent jurisdiction, where the children have been made wards of court,” the President said.

“Such cases are necessarily in the High Court. Others have been care cases commenced in the Family Court. Some cases have started out under the inherent jurisdiction but then become care cases.”

Sir James said only a local authority could start care proceedings (see section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989 – the police powers are set out in section 46).

“However, any person with a proper interest in the welfare of a child can start proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or apply to make a child a ward of court,” he noted.

The President said that usually, in these kinds of cases, it would be the local authority which started proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or applied to make a child a ward of court, and the court would not expect the police to do so.

“There is, however, no reason why in a case where it seems to the police to be necessary to do so, the police should not start such proceedings for the purposes, for example, of making a child a ward of court, obtaining an injunction to prevent the child travelling abroad, obtaining a passport order, or obtaining a Tipstaff location or collection order.”

Sir James said that given the complexities of these cases, he had decided that, "for the time being at least", all these types of cases were to be heard by High Court Judges of the Family Division.

The guidance also sets out the President’s views on a range of issues that judges hearing these cases would wish to be alert to, such as the need to protect the Article 6 rights of all the parties, and on media and reporting considerations.

Sir James added that advocates appearing in these cases would need to be alert to and be prepared to argue these issues.

The President also attached a list in chronological order of relevant judgments.