Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in failure to remove case

The Supreme Court has refused claimant AB’s application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in an action against Worcestershire County Council over its alleged failure to remove him from his mother’s care.

The Court of Appeal had upheld a judgment by Margaret Obi, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, that neglect, emotional abuse and minor physical abuse of a child by a parent may not arguably amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment” within the meaning of Art 3 of the ECHR, although careful attention will have to be paid to the facts in each case, said Paul Stagg, of Deka Chambers, who acted for Worcestershire.

The earlier Court of Appeal case had found there was “no realistic prospect” of AB establishing that Worcestershire - or Birmingham City Council where he had also lived - violated Article 3 by failing to seek a care order to remove him from his mother's care.

Lord Justice Lewis said then: “First, the evidence does not establish that there was any real and immediate risk of the appellant being subjected to treatment by his mother which would fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.

“Secondly, judged reasonably, neither Birmingham nor Worcestershire failed to take appropriate measures to address any risk that might exist by adopting measures which were less intrusive than seeking a care order.”

The Court of Appeal said though there was no requirement for children to already be placed in the care of a local authority for the obligations under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act to arise.

Mark Smulian