Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
No, they don't exist. You "assured" me that they do, but it appears that you were talking through your hat. Do you have a source other than the media reports? I don't. On the facts reported, no police officer could have exercised the power conferred by section 49.
I must have imagined the children I've PPO'd in the past then....Breadvan72 said:
You may have exercised the power conferred by section 49 of the Children Act 1989. That is not an order. Only courts make orders as to the welfare of children. Terminological inexactitude. This shows, by the way that police officers can't be relied on to know what the law is.
It's section 46....A police officer can remove a child for up to 72 hours without the need for a court order. Known as PPO around my way, perhaps the terminology is incorrect but essentially the police can remove a child if the grounds are there which could have been the case for this example. I've done it loads of times.
After all the police don't often give the media all the evidence mid way though an investigation, I'm sitting on the fence until I've heard everything as I'm not willing (unlike some) to draw conclusions from the press reports.
I'd like to add though that I'm not sure why they have been remanded. They know where they are, they're not going anywhere and if the child's that ill then it seems a bit severe keeping them away in spite of what they may or may not have done.
Unless of course intimations such as 'you'll never take us alive' have been muttered.
Unless of course intimations such as 'you'll never take us alive' have been muttered.
La Liga said:
Breadvan72 said:
No, they don't exist.
S.46 of the same act isn't an order, but it's what police refer to when they say "police protection order". The reason "order" often gets put on the end is that the designated police officer may apply for an EPO on behalf of the LA. * Leaving aside the MHA 1983 sectioning provisions, which only (just) comply with the ECHR because of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
From the incomplete knowledge I have from reading about this disgraceful episode, I think BV's take on the situation pretty much chimes with mine.
What I would like to know is what, in any, input the local social services have had. I note that the Wardship application was apparently made by the hospital.
To me the whole matter has the smack of authoritarian NHS management, and I wonder to what extent it has been the NHS managers pushing the agenda rather than the Medics.
No doubt in the fulness of time, all will become clear.
What I would like to know is what, in any, input the local social services have had. I note that the Wardship application was apparently made by the hospital.
To me the whole matter has the smack of authoritarian NHS management, and I wonder to what extent it has been the NHS managers pushing the agenda rather than the Medics.
No doubt in the fulness of time, all will become clear.
IanA2 said:
To me the whole matter has the smack of authoritarian NHS management, and I wonder to what extent it has been the NHS managers pushing the agenda rather than the Medics.
It doesn't look great by the hospital, but the thing is if you're the hospital and the lad dies (never mind that children sadly die every day from this kind of thing) you'll be pilloried for not having done more.I'm not saying it makes their actions right as it does still smack of "disagree and we'll have you arrested" but in the age of trial by media vs. fact I can perhaps see why they went the way they did.
If so, that shows the pernicious effect of reputation management on public bodies. I advise public bodies frequently, and reputation is one of their biggest concerns, but it shouldn't be. There's a culture of blame avoidance, engendered partly by a blame obsessed media but also by a name and shame culture fostered by central government.
The Telegraph is reporting today that the wardship order made last Friday is back in court for what it describes as "amendment" tomorrow. I had assumed that was referring to an on notice hearing to consider the emergency without notice order but I'm not familiar with the process so I could be wrong in that.
Either way, and irrespective of whether the family is represented, I can see the judge having some fairly pointed questions for the applicant's counsel in light of the media coverage over the past few days....
Either way, and irrespective of whether the family is represented, I can see the judge having some fairly pointed questions for the applicant's counsel in light of the media coverage over the past few days....
Breadvan72 said:
If so, that shows the pernicious effect of reputation management on public bodies. I advise public bodies frequently, and reputation is one of their biggest concerns, but it shouldn't be. There's a culture of blame avoidance, engendered partly by a blame obsessed media but also by a name and shame culture fostered by central government.
Sadly arse covering has a lot to do with policing when it comes to child cases etc. The police will always do as much as they can so that later down the line 'opportunities weren't missed'No ideal but that's what society have created.
Breadvan72 said:
If so, that shows the pernicious effect of reputation management on public bodies. I advise public bodies frequently, and reputation is one of their biggest concerns, but it shouldn't be. There's a culture of blame avoidance, engendered partly by a blame obsessed media but also by a name and shame culture fostered by central government.
It's media management.Don't get me wrong I have no doubt that the people involved at the care level believe they're acting in the childs best interests, but higher up I also have no doubt that there will be people involved who will also be thinking "How does this make our hospital look to the public?".
It just seems to be how it works these days, you don't want to be the guy "names and shamed" on the front page of the Mail.
Lurking Lawyer said:
The Telegraph is reporting today that the wardship order made last Friday is back in court for what it describes as "amendment" tomorrow. I had assumed that was referring to an on notice hearing to consider the emergency without notice order but I'm not familiar with the process so I could be wrong in that.
Either way, and irrespective of whether the family is represented, I can see the judge having some fairly pointed questions for the applicant's counsel in light of the media coverage over the past few days....
I would hope so too, but Family Judges do not always share the common law instincts of their brothers and sisters in more enlightened Divisions of the Courts.Either way, and irrespective of whether the family is represented, I can see the judge having some fairly pointed questions for the applicant's counsel in light of the media coverage over the past few days....
I would assume that the hearing tomorrow is indeed the return date following the without notice order, but it may not be effective as the parents have their hands full dealing with their incarceration and may not be ready to argue the Wardship position.
Greendubber said:
Breadvan72 said:
If so, that shows the pernicious effect of reputation management on public bodies. I advise public bodies frequently, and reputation is one of their biggest concerns, but it shouldn't be. There's a culture of blame avoidance, engendered partly by a blame obsessed media but also by a name and shame culture fostered by central government.
....The police will always do as much as they can so that later down the line 'opportunities weren't missed'...
Breadvan72 said:
I would hope so too, but Family Judges do not always share the common law instincts of their brothers and sisters in more enlightened Divisions of the Courts.
I would assume that the hearing tomorrow is indeed the return date following the without notice order, but it may not be effective as the parents have their hands full dealing with their incarceration and may not be ready to argue the Wardship position.
I'm a bit rusty on this stuff, but given the parents absence, doesn't the Official Solicitor appoint someone to represent the child. As I said, I'm pretty rusty.I would assume that the hearing tomorrow is indeed the return date following the without notice order, but it may not be effective as the parents have their hands full dealing with their incarceration and may not be ready to argue the Wardship position.
Breadvan72 said:
Martin4x4 said:
...
I haven't said anything about a 'criminal offence' and as lawyer I would expect you to know that is not necessary in this sort of case.
...
So you can be hunted by police and arrested without committing a criminal offence? Wow.I haven't said anything about a 'criminal offence' and as lawyer I would expect you to know that is not necessary in this sort of case.
...
PS: 10PS isn't a lawyer. He is a very well informed layman who is thinking of training as a lawyer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff