Judge criticises decision making of council in teenage radicalisation case

A High Court judge has described the decision making of a London borough as “fundamentally flawed” and “difficult to justify or defend” in a case involving a teenage girl at risk of radicalisation.

The girl (C) in A v London Borough of Enfield [2016] EWHC 567 (Admin) had first come to Enfield’s attention in July 2014 when her sister phoned the council’s Childrens Services Department to communicate her anxiety that C was planning to leave the country.

The information at the time noted that the girl had left her home in February 2014 without the consent of her family and travelled through Turkey to the Syrian border. She was 16 at the time and described as an A-star student.

C had a change of heart about her plans and contacted her father. Her parents then took her to stay with extended family in Pakistan.

On her return to Heathrow, she was detained by Counter-Terrorism Police and questioned by the UK Border Agency. She told police she disliked her family and wanted to live somewhere where she felt more ‘accepted’. This was taken to mean she wanted to live in an environment that was observant to stricter Islamic codes of behaviour. C then refused to return home with her parents and stayed initially at a hotel in Newham.

In the summer of 2014 C left the UK – travelling via Egypt, Greece and Bulgaria – despite the objections of her parents. Again she refused to live with them on her return.

In November 2014 C presented as ‘homeless’ to Tower Hamlets Council, indicating that her family lived in Enfield but she did not wish to return to them. Tower Hamlets ‘accommodated’ C overnight.

The following day she was taken to Enfield to be assessed by Enfield Children Social Care Services. The Enfield records suggested that C’s case was “high profile”, due to “concerns around radicalisation”.

However, the local authority concluded that C was not homeless as she was able to return to her parents.

Mr Justice Hayden said: “On my reading of the documents, though C's parents have plainly struggled with their daughter, they have never refused to provide her with accommodation. Enfield appears to have taken a simplistic approach and concluded that as her parents were offering accommodation, ipso facto, she could not be homeless.

“They compounded this flawed reasoning by extrapolating that as C was not homeless she could not be 'in need' in the sense contemplated by s.17 Children Act 1989. That position is one they hold to in their defence to this application.”

Despite the direct referral from Tower Hamlets, Enfield did not undertake any kind of structured assessment until June 2015 and then only in response to pre-action protocol correspondence, the judge said.

It appeared that Enfield Housing Team had referred C to a place which accommodated young people but she was not, for a variety of reasons, considered to be suitable. “Thereafter it appears to be common ground that Enfield took no further action and provided no further services or support,” Mr Justice Hayden said.

“Where C was in fact living in this period has been much debated. The preponderant evidence is that she stayed with a variety of friends, relatives and most probably from time to time with her parents. [Counsel for the claimant] has characterised this period as one in which C became 'increasingly unsafe'. It is perhaps important to emphasise that the nature of the risk to C from this chaotic lifestyle was of a different complexion to the risk of radicalisation. In this context, the risk was more generally to her physical, emotional and sexual security.”

According to the judge, it was “strikingly clear” that Enfield “did not truly analyse C’s case at all” within the framework of the provisions of s.17 Children Act 1989.

“Indeed it would seem to me that the risks arising to C by virtue of her views and belief structure and the concerns that she was within a spectrum of radicalisation, undoubtedly placed her securely within the contemplated reach of s.17,” he said.

“To this must also be added: preparation for a marriage to a much older man, which her parents were apparently unable to prevent; two occasions in which C had travelled extensively and alone in dangerous parts of the world; allegations by C of being locked in her home against her will for considerable periods of time; direct requests to the local authority from C's parents that she be found somewhere 'safe' to live; very significant periods when C's whereabouts were not known at all and allegations made by C to the effect that she had been subjected to disproportionate degrees of force from her father.”

Mr Justice Hayden said he found it hard to envisage any circumstances where issues of this kind arose that did not fall at very least within the ambit of s.17. “Far more likely they will require a more serious level of intervention.”

The judge continued: “It is paradigmatic that many children who are at risk or 'in need' live with parents or carers who themselves present the risk or, as here, are unable to protect from it. That such parents continue to offer a home to their children is often, again as here, understandable but frequently irrelevant.

“The Defendants have created a false logic: (i) the parents offer a home; (ii) the child is not homeless and therefore; (iii) the child is not 'in need' (per s.17). The flaw in this reasoning, which I am satisfied was the false equation constructed by the Defendants, is manifestly irrational.”

Mr Justice Hayden suggested that any reasonable decision maker looking at the broader spectrum of needs required by S. 17 could only have concluded both that C was a child 'in need' and that she required to be accommodated pursuant to S.20.

The judge rejected the council’s argument that the case was academic as C was now 18.

He concluded: “I consider that the local authority's decision making here is fundamentally flawed and…. difficult to justify or defend.

“I can not foresee any circumstances where it would be fair to exclude C from consideration of the entire range of services that would be open to her under s.35 Children (Living Care) Act 2000.”

Mr Justice Hayden said: “This is not to say, of course, that her entitlement to services should necessarily be regarded as automatic, it is inextricably linked to the identification of her welfare requirements. In this respect therefore she is to be regarded 'as if she were a former relevant child'….

“It is plainly desirable for C to be supported to take decisions for herself which are both better informed and rooted in a more reflective analysis. It is perhaps also important to note that there may very well be a significant benefit to wider society.”

Gráinne Mellon, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, appeared for the claimant, instructed by Samia Khaleeli from GT Stewart Solicitors.

Michael Paget of Cornerstone Barristers appeared for Enfield, instructed by the council’s legal services department.