Family - residence and contact applications.
Before : |
A. R. Binnington, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Austin-Vautier and Opfermann |
Between |
Z (the Mother) |
Applicant |
And |
Y (the Father) |
First Respondent |
And |
AA and BB (assisted by Eleanor Green in her capacity as Guardian) |
Second Respondents |
Advocate J. Corbett for the Applicant.
The First Respondent appeared on his own behalf.
Advocate D. C. Robinson for the second and third Defendants.
Advocate C. R. G. Davies as Amicus Curiae.
judgment
the COMMISSIONER:
1. This is a private law family matter concerning residence and contact applications in relation to two children: AA (aged 6) and BB (aged 3) (together "the Children"). Proceedings were issued in May 2022 and were transferred to the Royal Court in March 2023 by the Registrar of the Family Division, principally as a result of the failure by the parties to comply with orders made in anticipation of a final hearing before the Registrar.
2. Z ("the Applicant"), who is the mother and principal carer for the Children, seeks a residence order. Y ("the Respondent") who is the father of the children, seeks a joint residence order and a contact order. The Respondent does however agree that the Children have their primary home with their mother. All parties are agreed that the Children are well cared for, and a residence order is not contested by the Respondent. Both parents have parental responsibility.
3. The Applicant and Respondent, who are not married, lived together until they finally separated in July 2021. They have separated and reunited on a number of occasions. Prior to April 2022, there had been frequent direct contact (including overnight stays) between the Children and the Respondent. There has been significant involvement with the Children's Social Care Service due to concerns that the Children were being exposed to domestic abuse. The Respondent had been described as having controlling and coercive behaviours. There were arguments between the parents, to which the Children were exposed, particularly during handovers when the Respondent had contact with the Children.
4. In June 2021 both children were placed on the Child Protection Register under the risk category of emotional abuse. The care was stepped down to a Child in Need plan in November 2022, but both children were again placed on the Child Protection Register (emotional abuse) in September 2023, where they remain.
5. The Children's direct unsupervised contact with the Respondent ceased in April 2022. Following reports of the Respondent having made concerning comments in respect of a significant past local incident (the "Victoria Crescent Murder') in which a mother and her children were killed by their father, the Children's Social Care Service gave advice to the Applicant not to allow unsupervised contact between the Respondent and the Children.
6. Regrettably, it became clear from the evidence that the Respondent has made threats of violence on a number of occasions and then expressed surprise that they are taken seriously. He needs to understand that whatever he may mean by such threats professionals have to take them seriously when looking at the interests of the Children.
7. At the time of the hearing (18-19 December 2023), the Respondent was awaiting sentencing in respect of an offence relating to threatening email messages that he sent to the Applicant, to which he pleaded guilty. Since then he has been sentenced by the Magistrate to serve 120 hours Community Service (with 6 months' imprisonment in default) for that offence.
8. The Respondent's request for contact with the Children raises difficult issues. Contact logs maintained by the Children's Social Care Service suggested that the Respondent's contact with the Children was positive when it happened. The Respondent wishes to have flexible, direct and unsupervised contact - arranged directly between himself and the Applicant. The Applicant, in her position statement, indicated that she agreed to the Respondent having direct or indirect contact with the Children in a format or structure arrived at in cooperation with the JFCAS officer and/or the Children's Social Care Services However, the Respondent was adamant that he did not wish to have supervised contact and if it was to be supervised then it would have to be supervised by a family member and not by the Children's Social Care Service. The Applicant expressed the view in her position statement that she did not wish to be involved in any ordered contact for the foreseeable future in the light of issues concerning the parties' relationship. Whether she would ever become involved would, she said, depend upon the Respondent changing his behaviour.
9. Although prior to the hearing the Applicant had agreed to the Respondent having direct contact with the Children during the Christmas period 2023, to take place at the Respondent's flat under the supervision of the Applicant's mother (who was expected to arrive in Jersey on or about 22 December 2023), we learnt at the hearing that the maternal grandmother's travel arrangements had fallen through and she would not be coming to Jersey after all.
10. The Respondent insisted on representing himself throughout the proceedings and made it clear that he would not apply for a lawyer to be appointed under the legal aid scheme. As a result of the Respondent's behaviour during earlier hearings, it was clear to the Court that to proceed with the Respondent representing himself was likely to make the final hearing difficult, to say the least, and accordingly the Court had appointed Advocate Claire Davies to act as amicus curiae in order to ensure that the Court was aware of any points in the Respondent's favour that he might not have been able to put forward himself. In the event, we extended the role of the Amicus somewhat beyond its usual remit and asked Advocate Davies, with the Respondent's consent, to conduct a limited cross-examination of witnesses in his stead. We regarded the participation of the Amicus as being of significant benefit, not only in ensuring that the proceedings could proceed with minimal disruption, but also to ensure that the Respondent's case was properly before the court.
11. In addition, at an earlier hearing when neither party was legally represented, we had appointed a guardian to represent the children and at the hearing we had the benefit of reports from the Guardian, Ms. Green, and heard evidence from her. We also heard expert evidence from Dr David Briggs (a forensic and clinical psychologist) and from Mr C, a team manager in the Family Safeguarding section of the Children's Social Care Service, who was the manager of the family's allocated social worker.
12. The Applicant gave evidence and she was briefly cross-examined. She confirmed that she wished the Respondent to have contact with the Children and felt that it was in their best interests for this to happen. She said that the Children enjoyed the time that they spent with the Respondent and that they had been asking to see him since the parties separated. She confirmed that she had met up with the Respondent on approximately ten occasions during 2023 and had felt safe to do so. She did not believe that the Respondent would harm the children physically. She suggested that the Respondent should have contact with the Children once a week, initially for a period of one to one and a half hours. She could foresee them having overnight stays with their father in the future.
13. The Respondent gave evidence and was only briefly cross-examined. He confirmed that he had no issue with the Children living with their mother but that he wanted to be able to assist. He confirmed that he would be prepared to have a limited number of contact sessions supervised by the Childrens' Social Care Service which he felt would be appropriate given that he had not seen the Children for some time, but that they should be limited in number to one or two before he had contact supervised by someone else or unsupervised sessions. When cross-examined by Advocate Robinson, he made clear that he would not engage in therapy (to which we shall refer shortly) unless the Applicant participated with him.
14. Dr Briggs gave evidence by video link. Dr Briggs had prepared separate reports on the Applicant and the Respondent in January 2023 and provided a supplemental report in November 2023 following further interviews with both parties.
15. Dr Briggs noted that the Respondent has said that he would walk away from these proceedings and the Children if the Applicant did not agree to reunite and if family rehabilitation is not achieved. He gained the impression that the Respondent's own imperatives have assumed importance for him, notwithstanding that both parties may have contributed to relationship tension and hostility.
16. Dr Briggs believed that the Respondent remained unusually sensitive to any perceived threat, criticism, or challenge to his integrity. He noted that he does not cope well when his needs are not met and is not well equipped to deal with the challenges which are inherent in intimate relationships. He does not respond well to authority. The Respondent had told Dr Briggs that he finds it difficult when he believes that he is not listened to, if he perceives he is being met with anger or hostility from others, when things are taken from him that he loves, and when his opinion is not respected. Dr Briggs was of the view that this was not surprising given what the Respondent had told him about his experiences in childhood, suffering violence and maltreatment from an abusive father.
17. In his supplemental report, Dr Briggs indicated that he had some sympathy for the Respondent in as much as he believed that the "aggressive, uncompromising and hostile responses" he showed at times were most likely formulated as maladaptive coping mechanisms which developed over many years to protect him from his fragile emotions, and in response to the childhood abuse. He suggested that it would be in the Respondent's interests to address these matters further through a course of therapy. However, he recognised that at present the Respondent would find this difficult, as he would not have the coping skills to deal with the challenge that it would represent. The Respondent had made it clear that he had no appetite for therapy or other intervention. In the absence of such, Dr Briggs concluded that the Respondent continued to present as being at risk of undermining the Children's emotional needs for security and stability, were they to be exposed to his "emotionally dysregulated, verbally aggressive, threatening and somewhat unpredictable behaviours".
18. In relation to contact, Dr Briggs noted that contact, when supervised, had gone well and any risk presented by the Respondent had been successfully managed. The problematic issue was whether there was a cohort of family members or their equivalent to offer support in providing that supervision. However, he also recognised that supervised contact could not go on forever and that the ideal would be to move as quickly as possible from contact being supervised by the Children's Social Care Service, to being supervised by a family member or friend, this being a more natural environment and better for the Children.
19. Dr Briggs did not regard the Respondent as being mentally ill nor did he regard him as being likely to be a physical threat to the Children. He remained of the view that the Respondent was at risk of being verbally aggressive. He suggested that his maladaptive coping mechanism made him very threat-sensitive and on occasions his emotions would overwhelm him, particularly if he perceived, for example, that the Children's Social Care Service were suggesting that he was "a bad person". He further pointed out that certain matters, such as uncertainty in arrangements or promises not being kept, would be likely to act as triggers for an overwhelming emotional response. Thus, it was important for any professionals dealing with the Respondent to set clear guidelines and to ensure that if arrangements that had been made with him had to be varied, he was given advance warning and an explanation as to why this was necessary.
20. When asked by Advocate Robinson whether the Respondent posed a physical risk to the Children, Dr Briggs said that he could not be sure that there was no risk, but that his focus was on the most likely risk, which was that of psychological harm. He felt that this risk could be managed by contact initially being supervised.
21. Dr Briggs' conclusion was that he did not have evidence sufficient to reassure the Court that the parents' relationship, were the parents to live together and co-parent, had the capacity to be healthy and functional; a relationship which would guarantee the Children's emotional wellbeing and safety, or one in which the Children's emotional needs would be prioritised and sustained. He noted that the Respondent had not undertaken therapy which would allow him to build a formulation of his contribution to the relationship dysfunction and/or to have developed strategies to help improve communication, manage strain, and promote relationship healing.
22. Dr Briggs described the Respondent as "assertive and forthright, sees little reason for change, does not have a sophisticated formulation in my opinion of the nature of his problems, has little social support for change, and he does not have the capacity and stamina to cope with the challenge of any change process". He pointed out that therapy or counselling would subject him to criticism and invite him to view matters from a different perspective and unfortunately, he was "fundamentally stubborn".
23. Dr Briggs recommended that if the Court was persuaded that it was in the Children's interest to have contact with their father, then clear ground rules should be in place as to how handovers would be affected. He did not believe that one could rely upon the Respondent to engage appropriately with the mother over contact handovers. He also noted the argument that contact should be supervised. One challenge of this was, as the Respondent had pointed out, "how long could such an arrangement go on for?".
24. In common with other professionals, the Guardian had experienced difficulties in getting the Respondent to engage with her. Her account of an attempted meeting a month before the hearing graphically illustrates a number of the personality traits identified by Dr Briggs:
"At the start of the meeting, (the Respondent) asked me to confirm that the cameras in the room were for security purposes only, stating he felt professionals might use footage against him. I clarified this as best as I could. I explained my role and asked him to clarify what he felt the issues and concerns were. (The Respondent) spoke rapidly and loudly, stating I was not allowed to interrupt him. His expressed views were chaotically expressed, and there was little logical train of thought. His presentation became more irate, and he referred to two stabbings in Jersey, seemingly implying that he was being unfairly judged as he had not harmed anyone, but simply made threats to do so. I was uncertain as to why he had referred to these stabbings, and if it was an attempt to intimidate me...... (The Respondent) raised his voice and began shouting, and I asked him to speak more quietly. He stated he could shout more if he wanted, 'so that the whole building can hear'. I informed him that it made me uncomfortable and asked him to speak more quietly, and at this point he stated he was going to leave and did so. The entire appointment lasted no longer than approximately 10 minutes."
25. The Guardian expressed her concern that whilst Dr Briggs had recommended therapy to enable the Respondent to come to terms with, and to address the consequences of, the abuse that he had suffered in childhood, the Respondent had indicated that he would only participate in such therapy if the Applicant participated with him. This suggested to her that the Respondent's motive was his aspiration to reconcile with the Applicant, rather than to deal with behaviour that might negatively impact his children. She suggested that this appeared to be an example of his controlling behaviour.
26. The Guardian recognised that the ten contact sessions that had been supervised by the Children's Social Care Service had gone well, with the Respondent interacting appropriately with the Children.
27. The Guardian also expressed her concern at the Court making any order in relation to contact. She pointed out that were the Court to make an order which provided for the frequency, location and manner of supervision of contact the likelihood was that, given that the parents had little or no support networks in terms of family or friends, the Court would find itself having to intervene and effectively supervise the contact regime, which was not the function of the Court in private law proceedings.
28. In her most recent report, the Guardian expressed the view that any contact would require an element of supervision that would be complicated to arrange. She felt that it would be most appropriately managed under the auspices of the Child Protection Plan, to which the Children were already subject as a result of their parents' difficulties. She did not regard this case as one where the risks could be managed in Court proceedings, or by a final order being made, but it required medium to longer-term social work support to assist the Applicant in being able to protect the children. She considered that contact could most safely be supervised (she suggested once a month, then increasing if it went well) by a professional, whilst family members and friends were being assessed in the hope that they could take over this role.
29. Unfortunately, during the hearing it became clear that neither party had family or friends in the island who would be likely to be able to supervise contact, at least not in the immediate future, although there was a possibility that a local charitable entity might be able to provide the necessary assistance.
30. On a separate matter, the Guardian informed us that, given the elements of control and continuing intimidation of the Applicant by the Respondent, she was concerned about the possibility of further proceedings being issued in a short space of time, which in her view could have the impact of being very disruptive, but with little merit or practical hope of succeeding. She therefore suggested that the Court might wish to consider making an order pursuant to Article 66(8) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 ("the 2002 Law") which provides that on disposing of any application under the 2002 Law the Court "may order that no application for an order under this Law of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any persons named in the order without leave of the Court". She suggested that if the Court were minded to make such an order it should be for a period of two years, to allow time for the parents separately to obtain appropriate therapy and for the situation to calm and be managed properly by the Children's Social Care Service. She felt that at that point, the Respondent may well have demonstrated real change. If so, and contact could not be safely agreed between the parents, he would then be in a better position to make another application to the Court.
31. Mr C was keen to emphasise the continued willingness of the Children's Social Care Service to work with the family and to assist in the arrangement and supervision of contact sessions with the Respondent. He said that the Service was willing to arrange a supervised contact session between Christmas and New Year and to seek to arrange further sessions in the New Year. However, given the Respondent's unwillingness to have sessions supervised by the Children's Social Care Service and the lack of a family or friend support network, this could prove challenging.
32. Mr C recognised that the relationship between the Children's Social Care Service and the Respondent, and to a lesser extent, the Applicant, had not always been positive, with both the Applicant and Respondent having made complaints about their allocated social worker. In response to a question from the Amicus he said that if both parties requested a change in their allocated social worker, it would be considered, albeit that this would be an unusual step.
33. Having had the benefit of Dr Briggs' analysis of the Respondent's behavioural characteristics and the type of situations which could act as trigger mechanisms for his abnormal behaviour, it was clear to us that a number of the difficulties that the Children's Social Care Service had experienced with the Respondent might have been avoided had they had a better understanding of the type of circumstances that were likely to trigger the Respondent's emotional outbursts. We therefore express the hope that the Children's Social Care Service will make use of Dr Briggs' analysis in their dealings with the Respondent in future. We urge the Respondent to consider sharing Dr Briggs' report with the Children's Social Care Service to this end.
34. Mr C confirmed that whilst intervention by the Minister had been considered it was not felt to be necessary.
35. The Amicus helpfully reminded us of the factors that we should consider in reaching our decision.
36. First, the Court should be mindful that the parties have the right to respect for their private and family life under the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000. It therefore follows that the state should only interfere when necessary and proportionate.
37. Secondly, by virtue of Article 2 of the 2002 Law:
(i) the welfare of the Children is paramount (Article2(1));
(ii) any delay in determining a question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the Children (Article 2(2)); and
(iii) the Court shall not make the order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all (Article2(5)).
38. Thirdly, the Court will have regard to the welfare checklist set out at Article 2(3) and consider:
(i) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of the child's age and understanding);
(ii) the child's physical, emotional and educational needs;
(iii) the likely effect on the child of any change in his or her circumstances;
(iv) the child's age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child which the court considers relevant;
(v) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(vi) how capable each of the child's parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting the child's needs; and
(vii) the range of powers available to the court under the 2002 Law in the proceedings in question.
39. The Courts of England and Wales have accepted that, wherever possible, it is in the best interests of a child to maintain a relationship with both parents. Thus, in a decision of the English Court of Appeal in Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 ELR 124, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham held (at page 128D):
"...where parents of a child are separated and the child is in the day-to-day care of one of them, it is almost always in the interests of the child that he or she should have contact with the other parent. The reason for this scarcely needs spelling out."
40. Similarly, in In the matter of C (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 521, Munby LJ held (at paragraph 47):
"Contact between parent and child is a fundamental element of family life and is almost always in the interests of the child ... There is a positive obligation on the State, and therefore on the judge, to take measures to maintain and to reconstitute the relationship between parent and child, in short, to maintain or restore contact. The judge has a positive duty to attempt to promote contact. The judge must grapple with all the available alternatives before abandoning hope of achieving some contact. He must be careful not to come to a premature decision, for contact is to be stopped only as a last resort and only once it has become clear that the child will not benefit from continuing the attempt ... The court should take a medium and long-term view and not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short-term or transient problems."
41. These principles are enshrined in English law by statute, Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 providing that the Court must "presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare".
42. We note that this provision has not as yet been incorporated into the equivalent Jersey legislation, but we regard it as a principle to which the Jersey Courts should have regard.
43. The Guardian reminded us of the practical significance of the principle, stating in her first report that "Contact with an absent parent is important in helping a child establish self-identity as they grow up: knowing where they came from (genetically and socially); having a larger social network to call upon if in need of practical or emotional support".
44. This has been a troubling case.
45. When considering the welfare checklist, whilst the children are not of an age to express a considered view, it is clear that they enjoy contact with their father and are keen to see him. We also regard it as appropriate that, if at all possible, the Children should have contact with their father. The Respondent is capable of engaging appropriately with them during contact, the principal difficulty being his relationship with the Applicant if she is present during handovers. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that the Children are at risk of physical harm from their father, the risk that is of concern to us is that of emotional harm should he behave aggressively towards their mother in their presence.
46. There are certain matters that are not in issue.
47. First, it was accepted by all parties that the Children should remain being cared for by their mother as principal carer and that co-parenting is not a realistic option. Accordingly, we made a residence order in favour of the Applicant and refused the Respondent's application for a joint residence order. We note that by virtue of Article 14 of the 2002 Law, whilst the residence order is in force, the Children cannot be removed from Jersey for a period of one month or more without the father's written consent or the leave of the Court.
48. Secondly, there is no doubt that the Children wish to see their father and to maintain contact with him and this is being encouraged by the Applicant.
49. Thirdly, it is clear that when the Respondent has had supervised contact with the Children in the past the sessions have gone well, and the Respondent has behaved appropriately towards the Children.
50. The difficulties arise in relation to the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent and the extreme behaviour of the Respondent in respect of which he has little or no insight and apparently no desire to address. His continued assertion that "I am what I am" and that people must "take me as they find me" does him little credit and betrays an inability to put the interests of others, particularly his children, before his own. We accept that the evidence suggests that the Children are unlikely to be at risk of physical harm, but there remains a concern that they may be at risk of emotional harm if they are exposed to the Respondent's aggressive and emotional outbursts.
51. Although the parents have been separated for some time, it is obvious that neither of them has concluded that their relationship is at an end and both have harboured, and indeed expressed, hopes of resuming a permanent relationship. There is, however, little doubt that the Respondent has displayed coercive and abusive behaviour towards the Applicant, albeit that we recognise that there is some evidence to suggest that the Applicant has on occasions given him encouragement in relation to their future relationship but has given him mixed messages. Accordingly, it could be said that there has been a history of controlling behaviour on the part of both parties, although it has been far more significant on the part of the Respondent than the Applicant.
52. If the Respondent is to have contact with the Children, it is clear that whilst he is alone with them he is likely to behave in a caring and loving manner. However, there remains a risk of inappropriate behaviour on his part, most notably at the moment of handover if the Applicant is present. In order to reduce that risk, the handover should be effected by someone other than the Applicant or it should be effected in such a manner that she and the Respondent do not encounter each other alone. Furthermore, at least in the initial phase of contact sessions, it is clearly appropriate that the contact sessions are supervised. The obvious supervisors would be representatives of the Children's Social Care Service, but the Respondent has made clear that he is only willing to participate in a very limited number of sessions supervised in this manner. This is, regrettably, another example of the Respondent's tendency towards controlling behaviour. Ordinarily this might not present a significant problem in that one would seek support from third parties such as family or friends, but neither party currently appears to have anyone in this category who would be either suitable or available. Unless an independent individual, possibly a representative of a charitable body that provides these services, can be found the only likely solution will remain representatives of the Children's Social Care Service, and in this connection the Respondent may have to decide whether he places the interests of his children above his personal preferences.
53. The Respondent needs to recognise that one of the major contributions that he can make to the lives of his children is to act as a role model for them. At present his behaviour is such that he is the very opposite of a positive role model. As Dr Briggs noted in his evidence, as the Children grow older, they will no doubt present the Respondent with challenging behaviour and if he reacts to that in the way that he currently reacts to those who challenge him, he may well cause them emotional harm. This would in effect perpetuate the destructive nature of the relationship that he had with his own father. We would hope that the Respondent will reflect on that.
54. We accept that the Respondent's behaviour is to a large extent the product of his abusive childhood, but now that this has been identified, there are means available to him to address his behavioural issues and to enable him to behave in a way which would present a positive role model to his children. The fact that he refuses to contemplate therapeutic assistance unless it is on his own terms suggests, as Dr Briggs noted, a selfish personality with little regard for the potentially adverse impact on his children. We very much hope that he will reconsider his stance and take advantage of the offers of therapeutic help with a view to addressing his behaviour.
55. As we have already noted, we recognise that, if possible, we need to promote contact between the Respondent and the Children. However, we need to consider whether the risk, in this case (the most likely risk being emotional harm), outweighs the positive contribution to their welfare that contact with their father can bring. We conclude that, properly managed, contact should be encouraged.
56. We must remind ourselves that these proceedings are private law, rather than public law, proceedings. The engagement by the parties with the Children's Social Care Service is therefore on an entirely voluntary basis. We also recognise that, as far as possible, there should be as little intervention as possible by the state in the lives of this family. Were we to make a prescriptive order in relation to the manner in which contact is to take place, we fear that we would be likely to be setting the parties up to fail given the somewhat complex dynamics between the Applicant and the Respondent and the fact that both parties have a history of non-compliance with interim contact orders. Furthermore, such an approach is likely to lead to further Court appearances and the Court effectively being asked to supervise the contact arrangements. We do not regard that as in the interests of the parties or, indeed, the Children. It ought to be possible for safe contact arrangements to be supported by the Children's Social Care Service, as the Guardian suggested, via the mechanism of the Child Protection Plan.
57. Accordingly, we decided to make no order in respect of the Respondent's application for contact and it will be for the parties to arrange appropriate contact with the assistance of the Children's Social Care Service. We suggest, but do not order, that contact is on a supervised basis until such time as it is clear that there is little risk of the Children being exposed to emotional harm. We recognise the existence of the safeguard of the Children continuing to be monitored by the Children's Social Care Service on a regular basis.
58. In relation to the Guardian's suggestion that we should make an order pursuant to Article 66(8) of the 2002 Law, we do not regard this as an appropriate case in which to make such an order. There is no history in this case of the Respondent making numerous or needless applications, which is the most the usual basis for such an order being made. If, however, the situation changes it is always open to the Court to consider such an order in due course.
59. The Court was pleased to note that the Children appear to be well-adjusted, with AA being described by his school as a "model pupil". If the Respondent takes the opportunity that has been offered to him for therapeutic treatment for his behavioural issues, he ought to be able to make a positive contribution to the upbringing of the Children. We urge him to do so.
Authorities
Children (Jersey) Law 2002.
Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.
Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 ELR 124