Up until last week the legal focus of the inquiry into child sexual exploitation (CSE) was from a criminal law angle. However, on Wednesday 19th November it was made public that injunctions had been obtained in the Family Division of the High Court against 10 men whom were suspected of sexually exploiting a 17 year old girl.
Social workers and police were unable to gain sufficient evidence to satisfy the criminal burden of proof – beyond all reasonable doubt. However, they were able to convince a judge on the civil burden – the balance of probabilities – that the men were guilty of grooming and exploiting the girl since she was a young teenager.
The long term injunctions ban the men from approaching girls under the age of 18 with whom they are not personally associated. If the men are found to be in breach of the injunction they will be in contempt of court which can carry a sentence of imprisonment.
These injunctions were made under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In the blog on the Aysha King case (5th September 2014) an explanation of the inherent jurisdiction was given as ‘an ancient doctrine of English law which gives the High Court the right to hear any matter that comes before it, unless statute or some other rule states otherwise’.
The state has a right and duty to protect vulnerable citizens, mostly children though also vulnerable adults, under another ancient doctrine called parens patrie, – literally the parent of the nation. This is most commonly exercised by local authorities in care proceedings.
The usual family law injunctions were not appropriate in the Birmingham case. Such injunctions require that a perpetrator must not use or threaten violence, harass or pester or instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so. They can only be made when a victim of abuse applies for an order.
In the Birmingham case care proceedings were not appropriate; it is well known that many victims of CSE are already the subject of care proceedings. It was highly unlikely that the victims could have been persuaded to apply for family law injunctions as they do not always view themselves as being victims. The High Court injunctions were available as no existing law covers this situation and it was not necessary for the victims to give evidence.
What’s very unusual in this case is the decision by the Judge, Justice Keehan, to name the men. The Press Association and the Times newspapers applied to the court stating that that the public had a right to know the identity of the men. The judge agreed with the public interest argument to name and shame even though the police were against this for fear of vigilant action.
It is a new and innovative approach of Birmingham Council to protect young girls in the city and it is likely that other local authorities will follow suit. Whether the men subject to these injunctions should be named is another matter which will no doubt be the subject of further legal, and media, debate.
0 Comments