B e f o r e :
| KENT COUNTY COUNCIL
|- and -
|X (The Mother)
|| FIRST RESPONDENT
|- and -
|Y (The Father)
|| SECOND RESPONDENT
|- and -
|Z (A Child)
|| THIRD RESPONDENT
24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT
Tel: 01303 230038
Victoria Roberts of counsel for the Applicant, instructed by the Local Authority
Stephen Bartlet-Jones of counsel for the 1st Respondent (instructed by Moss Beachley Mullem & Coleman, Solicitors)
Phillipa Thomas, Solicitor, for the Second Respondent (Child) (appearing on behalf of Davis, Simmonds & Donaghey, Solicitors)
Other Parties Present and their status
Judgment date: 6th July 2017 Transcribed from 15:29:00 until 15:59:12
Crown Copyright ©
Her Honour Judge Sarah Davies:
"The question must be approached in two stages. Firstly, under Section 38.2 of the Children Act 1989, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances with respect to the child are as mentioned in Section 31.2. Section 31.2 of the Children Act provides that a Court may only make a Care Order or Supervision Order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him or her, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her."
"The interim hearing must be properly confined to control immediate interim until the Court can hold a full trial."
That is the case of Re: H (A Child) (Interim Care Order)  EWCA Civ 1932. Bearing that in mind, I have taken into account such of the evidence as seems reasonable to rely on at this stage.
"The Secretary of State may, on the application of any person remanded in custody in any part of the United Kingdom in connection with an offence or serving a sentence of imprisonment in the UK, make an order for his transfer to another part of the United Kingdom, to be remanded in custody pending his trial for the offence, as the case may be, to serve the whole or any part of the remainder of his sentence and for removal to an appropriate institution thereof."
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied, in the case of any person remanded in custody in any part of the United Kingdom in connection with an offence, the person serving a sentence of imprisonment in any part of the United Kingdom or somebody detained in a prison, that the attendance of that person at any place in that, or any part of, the United Kingdom, is desirable in the interests of justice or for the purpose of any public enquiry, the Secretary of State may direct that person to be taken to that place."
"Any Production Order should be drafted in such a way as to provide maximum assistance to the Prison Governor or his delegates to understand the issues in the case, why the cost of and security risk of production is justified and what form of production is justified, whether by phone, video link or in person and whether the case is frivolous."
On that basis, I am happy to say that I commend the Production Order drafted by counsel and I fully accept that to expect a party's solicitors to be personally liable for a Production Order, or indeed any order, is wrong unless there is a Waste of Costs Order and the Production Order used was incorrect.
"The order must be held by or made available to all staff who are involved in the consideration of requests for production to Court in civil proceedings [as these are] and made available to all prisoners. All staff involved in considering requests for production must be aware of, and take into account, Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and decide cases on their own merits. The primary consideration when dealing with a request to produce a prisoner to attend at a civil hearing must be whether it is in the interests of justice that he or she should attend. A prisoner's ability or willingness to pay for production must not be a factor in deciding whether the prisoner is produced at Court. The decision must be based solely on whether it is in the interests of justice that the prisoner attend the proceedings, balanced with security constraints. When a decision has been made that the interests of justice require production at Court, the normal security considerations must be taken into account."
"Does the prisoner want to attend. Do they have an interest in the proceedings. If they are unwilling to, does the authority or individual requesting production still wish the prisoner to attend. Do they need to obtain a subpoena or Court order which must be served on the prisoner before production can be arranged."
"The nature of the case may determine how important it is that the prisoner attends."
And there are certain categories where it is usually desirable to produce the prisoner:
"Where there are arrangements for children are to be made or cases involving a prisoner's finances, such as bankruptcy or any other family case such as divorce or Restraining Orders. The Prison Service has to be careful, under Article 6, that any decision to prevent a prisoner from attending Court, when the case is against the Prison Service or the police, whether it can be justified…"
And there are further considerations about whether the prisoner needs to attend if they have legal representation.