LW -v- London Borough of Islington (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003290

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 November 2024

Before:

Richard Clayton KC
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

View Judgment

The King
on the application of
LW

-v-

London Borough of Islington

Order

On an application by the Claimant for (i) an anonymity order and/or (ii) expedition made on 3 October 2024

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by Richard Clayton KC 2024 sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Anonymity is granted pursuant to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The Claimant will be referred to as LW in these proceedings.

  2. No person or body shall by any means, whether orally or in writing or electronically, or by any other way of social media communication, or in any other way, directly or indirectly publish or communicate information on any part or any parts of it concerning LW, her family and home, cause, enable, assist or encourage the publication or communication of information or any part of it concerning LW. In particular this shall cover the identification of LW’s residence, family, EOTAS provider, and all associated professionals working with LW.

  3. A person who is not a party to the proceedings

    (a) may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with subparagraphs above.

    (b) If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(1B) or (2)) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor.

  4. The Claimant’s applied for expedition but did not seek to abridge time for the Defendant to serve its Acknowledgement of Service by making an Application for Urgent Consideration.

  5. The Defendant has since failed to serve its Acknowledgement of Service by 31 October 2024 in accordance with CPR 52.8(2) and has failed to advance any submissions to the effect that permission and/or interim relief and/ or expedition should be refused.

  6. The Defendant shall file its Acknowledgement of Service (and an application to extend time for serving it) and any evidence no later than 4 pm on 7 November 2024 and the Claimant shall have permission to file a Reply (if so advised, no later than 4 pm on 11 November 2024.

  7. No later than 12 November 2024 the papers shall be placed before a Judge to consider whether to grant permission. Interim relief and/or expedition.

Reasons

  1. On 3 October 2024 the Claimant issued proceedings including an application for anonymity and/or for expedition.

    (a) The Claimant is a young woman with a very unusual profile of needs. She has Down’s syndrome but is of at least average cognitive ability. She has a number of severe and complex special educational needs, but her central disability is cerebral visual impairment (CVIs) which is her primary area of need. This impairment means that she struggles to process visual information, and often cannot recollect images even if she has been able to see them. Consequently, she cannot access information in pictorial or diagrammatic form. She also has significant mental health difficulties, which impede her access to education. Her July 2022 EHC plan states – the Claimant’s disabilities do not merely add to, but often dramatically magnify each other, increasing the severity of each already compromised system. Her visual impairment includes Dorsal Stream dysfunction and Ventral Stream dysfunction. She has an associated hearing deficit, combined with significant sensory and motor difficulties. LW has resultant communication interaction difficulties, to include pragmatic language difficulties, and speech production difficulties such as Dysphonia and Dysarthria.

    (b) In the Defendant’s draft order sent to the Court on 10 August 2024 it accepts that s 39 applies.

    (c) In my judgment the Claimant’s Article 8 rights of the Claimant to respect for private and family life, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression justify granting an anonymity to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the interests of the Claimant and that there is no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure.
  1. The Claimant appears to have a prima facie case that expedition is necessary:

    (a) The issued EHC plan on 6 August 2024 actually states, in relation to speech and language therapy, habilitation, occupational therapy and physiotherapy, that the assessment under Section 36 of the 2014 Children and Families Act is not completed. On the face of it, so the Claimant submits, the plan admits that there is an incomplete assessment, and a plan can only be lawful if the assessment is completed.

    (b) The Claimant further submits that the reason why she was not fit to be assessed by the Defendant is her extreme mental health difficulties which means she cannot be assessed by a professional who is not known to her, and with whom she has not built a trusting relationship. However, the Defendant had available to it reports from a treating speech and language therapist, occupational therapist, habilitation officer and physiotherapist, and has disregarded them.

    (c) The Claimant next allege that Defendant without evidence, removed all relevant mental health provision. Dr Richard Soppitt, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist’s report is still in Section K of the plan, is still relevant and is not outdated. Dr Arnold’s reports, the last one being the 21 December 2023 report, all emphasise the continuing need for access to a clinical psychologist and adapted CBT. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has simply stripped that out without any contrary evidence, disregarded the evidence of Dr Arnold, and the other medical professionals including Dr Soppitt. In addition, it has allegedly stripped out provision to differentiate the curriculum for the Claimant. She is sight impaired and needs appropriate differentiated material. This has been largely removed meaning that she won’t be able to access the curriculum. It is alleged that everybody agrees an EOTAS programme is appropriate with her transition into school.

    (d) The Claimant submits that any consultation with St. Vincent’s will therefore be based on a plan which is essentially stripped out, ignoring the current evidence of treating professionals who work with the Claimant and know her, and places the Claimant at risk of a further episode of PTSD and rejection of her place. It is essential that any consultation takes place on the basis of a properly conducted lawful plan.

    (e) In addition, the Clamant submits that there has been no annual review, a statutory obligation to hold an annual review under s 44, at the outside 12 months on the anniversary of the EHC plan. An annual review is intended to inform the Defendant of current progress, any changes needed to the plan, and any upgrade or reduction of provision, as well as understanding how the child or young person is progressing. Due to the absence of an annual review, the Claimant submits that the plan has been based on inadequate information and has been issued when the Defendant authority is in breach of statutory duty.

    (f) In addition, the Claimant submits that the current plan does not meet all of the Claimant’s established needs, and the personal budget proposed does not actually cover all the provision, inadequate though it is, offered by the Defendant.

  2. The Claimant declined to file and serve an Urgent Consideration Application in Form N 463. Accordingly, the Claimant failed to apply to the Court to seek time to abridge the Defendant’s time to serve its Acknowledgement of Service. Under CPR 52.8(2) the Defendant was entitled to file its Acknowledgement no later than 21 days after the claim has been served on it by the Claimant.

  3. The Defendant’s has not communicated with the Court since 10 October 2024 when it emailed the Court and sent a draft Order.

  4. Accordingly, it now has become necessary for the Defendant to apply for an extension of time to file an Acknowledgment and to advance its case that that permission and/or interim relief and/or expedition should be granted.

Signed: Richard Clayton KC

Date: 4th November 2024