London Borough of Newham v CA

1 This court is concerned as the Family Court with the welfare of an adolescent girl, A, who is in the care of the local authority, the London Borough of Newham, which brings these committal proceedings. She absconded from care earlier this year and it was feared that she had fallen victim to sexual predation. On any view she is a vulnerable young person who was in need, and continues to be in need, of protection. 2 A recovery order pursuant to s.50 of the Children Act 1989 , was issued by District Judge Simms at East London Family Proceedings Court. The matter was progressed in the High Court by the local authority and an collection order was made on 9 th October 2013 by Mrs Justice Hogg after execution of which the child was located on 18 th October 2013 in the presence of Mr. Shah who now appears before me in these contempt and committal proceedings. 3 However, she again absconded and an order for her collection was made by Mr Justice Keehan on 24 th October 2013, and it is with breaches of that order that I am concerned. To enable her location to be established, orders were made by Mr Justice Cobb on 20 th November for, which included amongst others an order that Mr. Qasim Shah to be brought before the court to answer questions as to her whereabouts. 4 On 20 th November, he appeared before me and denied, in the face of the court and directly to questions from me, any knowledge of her location or having been in communication with her. 5 Qasim Shah was brought before the court again on 28 th November following after the child was located, by the Metropolitan Police, at Mr. Shah's property. Mr. Shah attempted to impede the access of the police to the property. He is suspected to have been in a sexual relationship with the child, knowing her to be under age. That is not a matter for me to deal with, and I do not deal with it. What is a matter for me is the protection of young people, particularly those vulnerable young people in local authority care. This court cannot and will not countenance predation and exploitation of young persons in care and those who encourage them to abscond and/or who actively obstruct their return both to their placements and to the protection to which they are entitled. 7 Mr. Shah accepts the following: first, in relation to the contempt he accepts that on 22 nd November 2013 he appeared before me at this court on the execution of the witness summons dated the 20 th November 2013. Following the making of an order regarding the child by Hogg J, and on 24 th October 2013 by a collection order Keehan J. Prior to that the young person under 16 in the care of the local authority and who had absconded from their care and was discovered vulnerable and at risk of sexual exploitation and in his presence at a party in a house on18 th October 2013. 8 On 22 nd November 2013, when he appeared before me he gave evidence he denied knowing the young person, apart from at the party. He said he had only met her on 18 th October 2013 and he admitted contact the day before by mobile telephone - that is to say on 17 th October. It is clear, and he accepts, that he lied to me and showed contempt in the face of the court, which is a very serious matter, and moreover, the court is concerned with the welfare and safety of the young person. The grounds for saying that he was in contempt are that he did have knowledge of her and of her whereabouts. She was found attempting to leave his property at 5 Hartington Road on 27 th November 2013. At the time he was found naked, or almost naked, and trying to stop police from gaining entry and by those actions he is in contempt of court, specifically the terms of the collection order. 9 In relation to the breaches of the collection order dated 24 th October 2013 made by Keehan J in this court, he admits the following breaches: (i) That he had text contact with the child throughout the 17 th October 2013 from 00.21 up until 16.32 compromising of 152 text messages to the child from him and 117 text messages to him from the child which grew in frequency nearing one text per minute during the period 15.13 to 16.22. The child absconded from her placement at 17.20. The telephone contact completely stopped until 25 th October 2013. (ii) He it is accepted that he made plans with the child to abscond. It is not accepted that he physically collected her from her placement and thus aided her absconding, although he does not deny being involved in her absconding on that occasion. (ii) He accepts that he had contact, every day, with the child from 17 th October to 22 nd October and on 25 th October the calls and that the calls and texts stopped when the child stopped using her mobile. (iii) He accepts that he provided his mobile telephone number ending 8840 to the child, which she used to call her mother on 1 st November 2013; the child informed her mother that she was with a male in his 30 who was taking care of her. (iv) He accepts that he telephoned the Mis-per Police Unit on 1 st November 2013 and stated that he did not know the child except for the party on 17 th October and that he did not associated with her. (v) He accepts that he told the police that he had not seen the child since the party on 17 th October when the police Mis-per telephoned him on the 2 nd November 2013 trying to locate the child. (vi) He accepts that he denied the child used his telephone on 1 st November, that he had not seen her for a few weeks when police officers attended his home and spoke to him on 2 nd November to try to locate the child. (vii) He accepts that on 14 th November 2013 police officers attended his home and spoke to him and he did not disclose his knowledge of the child or her whereabouts. (viii) He also accepts that when the police officers attended his home he made some threats towards them. The exact nature of those threats as contained in the papers filed with the court is not accepted. (ix) It is accepted that the child was found in his company at his property on 27 th November. (x) He accepts that he attempted to bar entry tried to impede entry to his property on 27 th November 2013 by sitting on the floor naked, or almost naked, against the door and that he did not move from that position when asked by police officers three times. (xi) Finally, he accepts that when service was attempted by the process server who came with the documents at his property dated 20 th November, including the witness summons of the High Court he refused to open the door. 10 These are all serious breaches of the collection order. Contempt of court and disobedience of the terms of court orders is particularly serious as the court was trying to locate and safeguard a child. I have to take these matters very seriously, and I do. It is for the court to protect young people and those that deliberately impede their collection or their protection have to be treated with severity and any sentence must be marked so that this kind of behaviour is seen to be totally unacceptable under any circumstances. 11 Therefore, I pass sentence as follows: In respect of the contempt in the face of this court I pass a sentence of six months. In respect of the breaches of the collection order I pass a sentence of three months, to be served consecutively. These sentences would have been longer, but I accept that since Mr. Shah was caught with the child, he fully co-operated with the court and attended the court on more than one occasion and has helped the authority with for further information. 12 The local authority is to put formal complaints before the Metropolitan Police for investigation of offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 . 13 This judgment will be transcribed and after transcription will be published. Thank you.