Court of Appeal

Published April 14, 2008

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v T

Before Lord Justice Thorpe, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Hughes

Judgment March 19, 2008

A child supervision order had an initial life of 12 months and could be extended for a further two years maximum.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in allowing an appeal brought by the father, against Judge Peter Hunt, who, in Leeds County Court on October 31, 2007, granted a three-year supervision order under section 31 of, and paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989 in proceedings brought by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council concerning the future of his daughter, born on February 3, 2005.

Miss Eleanor Hamilton, QC and Mr Stephen Switalski for the father; Mr Anthony Hayden, QC, for the district council and the child’s guardian.

LORD JUSTICE THORPE said that the capacity of the child’s parents to provide good enough parenting was not in question.

The risks related to the maternal grandmother’s partner who had a long criminal record for sexual offences and it was not disputed that he was and was likely to remain a danger. In those circumstances, the judge’s pragmatic decision to impose a supervision order for the maximum overall life which the statute allowed was extremely sensible.

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the 1989 Act was the crucial statutory provision. Its lack of comprehensive clarity and the absence of any previous authority had created this appeal.

The argument was simple. Paragraph 6 (1) provided that a “supervision order shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which it was made.” Sub-paragraph (3) permitted the court to extend, but by sub-paragraph (4) prohibited extension “beyond the period of three years”.

Miss Hamilton relied on two strong supports for her approach. The first was the statutory provisions which paragraph 6 replaced found in section 17 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

That provided that a supervision order ceased to have effect on the expiration of three years or shorter period if it was specified. She relied secondly on In re A (Supervision order: Extension) ([1995] 1 FLR 335).

Mr Hayden made much of the good sense of the judge’s approach and the need to construe any statutory ambiguity to enable judges to make sensible orders.

However, in his Lordship’s judgment, Miss Hamilton’s submissions were to be preferred. In doing so, his Lordship recognised that her construction did not banish all difficulties but Mr Hayden’s solution amounted to an impermissible circumvention of the plain language of paragraph 6(1).

Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Hughes agreed.

Solicitors: John Wood Partnership, Wakefield; Mrs Jacqueline Pepperell, Wakefield and Michael George & Co, Dewsbury.

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending