RXK -v- The Family Court sitting in Manchester (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtFamily CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023- LON-000161

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

18 December 2023

Before:

David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
RXK

-v-

The Family Court sitting in Manchester

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of Service filed by the Interested Party, Rochdale Borough Council.

ORDER by David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:

1. In order to maintain the anonymity of the Claimant’s children, the Claimant shall be known as “RXK” in these proceedings.

2. No person may identify the Claimant as the person who brings these proceedings without having first obtained the permission of the High Court.

3. The Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

4. The application is certified as totally without merit.

5. No order as to costs.

Reasons

1. This is an application to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge a decision made by Mr Recorder Siddiqi sitting in the Family Court in Manchester. The Recorder made a care order under the Children Act 1989 in respect of the Claimant’s children, K and O. The Recorder gave a full judgment setting out his reasons for making this order.

2. The Claimant sought permission to appeal and this was refused by Lord Justice Baker in a detailed decision dated 22 July 2022. The Judge noted that there was “extensive evidence that the mother and father had seriously physically and emotionally ill treated the children, in particular K”. He also noted that it “was also clear and accepted by the mother that she had failed to protect the children …”.

3. The Claimant has exhausted her attempts to appeal the lawfulness of the Recorder’s decision as a result of the refusal of permission to appeal. Permission for a further challenge to that decision by way of a judicial decision should only be granted in wholly exceptional circumstances: see R (on the application of Mahon) v Taunton County Court [2001] EWHC (Admin) 1078, R (on the application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court [2003] 1 WLR 475, Gregory v Turner [2003] 1 WLR 1149, R (on the application of Strickson) v Preston County Court [2007] EWCA Civ 1132 and R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin).

4. Whilst I can understand that the Claimant profoundly disagrees with the decision to take her children into care, it is plain that there was material before the Recorder which fully justified the Recorder coming to his decision. In my judgment, there are no exceptional circumstances in this case so as to justify another attack on the decision by way of judicial review. I therefore refuse permission.

5. It seems to me that this case is so clear that I should certify it as being totally without merit and do so.

CPR 54.12(7) APPLIES. THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT REQUEST THAT THE DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BE RECONSIDERED AT A HEARING.