LAW REPORT: Care worker can make disclosure to police

LAW REPORT v 8 December 1995

Re G (a minor) (Care proceedings: Disclosure); Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Auld and Sir Roger Parker); 25 October 1995

A social worker did not require the court's leave under rule 4.23 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (SI 1247) before disclosing to the police potentially incriminating statements or admissions made by parents concerning unexplained injuries received by their child. Although the child was the subject of care proceedings, the rule applied only to documents already held in the court's file.

The Court of Appeal by a majority allowed the local authority's appeal against the decision of Judge Elystan Morgan, sitting in Warrington County Court on 22 May 1995, on the effect of rule 4.23. The rule provides:

Confidentiality of documents:

(1) Notwithstanding any rule of court to the contrary, no document, other than a record of an order, held by the court and relating to proceedings to which this Part applies shall be disclosed, other than to [parties, legal advisers etc] without leave of the judge or district judge.

Margaret De Haas (Cheshire County Council) for the appellant; Alexandra Stansby (Michael Seward & Co, Warrington) for the parents; Paula Fallows (Rowlands, Stockport) for the child's guardian ad litem; Robin Spencer (Cheshire Police Authority) for the police.

Lord Justice Butler-Sloss said the police had two functions in such cases: the investigation of crime and the protection of children. They fully participated all over the country in inter-disciplinary arrangements recommended in the 1991 booklet Working Together (under the Children Act 1989).

The booklet did not have legal status but, with the lessons of Cleveland in mind, the emphasis upon co-operation, joint investigation and full consultation at all stages of any investigation were crucial to the success of government guidelines. There had to be free exchange of information between social workers and police officers together engaged in an investigation.

The information obtained by social workers in the course of their duties was confidential and covered by public interest immunity. It could, however, be disclosed to fellow members of the child protection team engaged in the investigation of the possible abuse of the child concerned.

Rule 4.23 precluded the disclosure of documents held by the court and relating to family proceedings, to anyone other than those named in the rule, without leave of the court. The rule followed the long established practice of confidentiality of children proceedings, stemming from the practice in wardship cases.

In Oxford County Council v P [1995] 2 All ER 225, Mr Justice Ward held that a guardian ad litem should not, without the court's leave, have disclosed to a social worker, who then informed the police, that the mother had confessed to injuring her child.

Her Ladyship agreed with that decision; but in so far as both Mr Justice Ward in that case and Mrs Justice Hale in Cleveland County Council v F [1995] 2 All ER 236 appeared to equate the position of the social worker with that of the guardian, her Ladyship disagreed.

The guardian had no function outside the proceedings to which he had been appointed. A social worker's duties towards children in his area were far wider and were by no means confined to court proceedings. In many cases the children never came before a court. Some documents created by the social services department, such as written statements made for the purpose of care proceedings, would be covered by rule 4.23; but many, such as oral admissions recorded in writing in the social work file, would not.

Her Ladyship would give a more restrictive interpretation to rule 4.23 and limit it to documents held by the court in the court file. It was important that the rule should not be too loosely interpreted so as to cover information at a stage when it was not intended to be covered and which would be contrary to the wider considerations of the child's best interests.

Sir Roger Parker concurred.

Lord Justice Auld gave a dissenting judgment.