R (Ghuman) v Thames Valley Police [2018] EWHC 2059 (Admin)
Summary
R (Ghuman) v Thames Valley Police [2018] EWHC 2059 (Admin) concerned a judicial review challenge by Mr Nasir Ghuman against the decision of Thames Valley Police to issue him with a Child Abduction Warning Notice (CAWN) on 25 March 2017. Mr Justice Supperstone dismissed the claim.
The claimant, a 31-year-old licensed taxi driver, sent a series of text messages to a 14-year-old girl, JCP, whom he had recently driven in his taxi. In the messages he asked her name, complimented her, told her his name, said it had been his good luck to pick her up, said he wished to pick her up again and said it would be a pleasure to do something for her. The girl’s mother and stepfather reported the messages to the police and asked for appropriate action. The CAWN was authorised by Detective Inspector Banfield on 23 March 2017. In his witness statement Mr Banfield said the comments were not what would be expected of a professional taxi driver towards a child fare and that given his experience of grooming offences he suspected the comments to be the start of a process that could lead to the child being exploited. CAWNs have no statutory footing. They are issued by Thames Valley Police in accordance with internal guidance entitled “Procedure for Investigation and Safeguarding of Young Persons through the use of child abduction warnings”. The guidance stated that CAWNs are aimed at tackling cases where young people under 16 place themselves at risk of significant harm due to their associations and the forming of inappropriate relationships. The guidance made clear that breach of a notice is not a criminal offence but that notices form part of an administrative process and may provide evidence to support the prosecution of other criminal offences or civil proceedings. The guidance provided that a CAWN could be issued if a child under 16 is the subject of reports suggesting their behaviour and association with a suspect is giving significant cause for concern.
The claimant challenged the decision on four main grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and disproportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On illegality, Mr Raja for the claimant submitted that the whole essence of section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is the prohibited conduct of taking and detaining and there was no evidence the child was going to be taken or detained by the claimant. Mr Justice Supperstone rejected this submission. He held that the guidance envisaged that a CAWN could be issued where a child under 16 is the subject of reports suggesting their behaviour and association with a suspect is giving significant cause for concern. The CAWN was issued because the claimant’s conduct towards JCP gave rise to significant cause for concern. The judge accepted the submissions for the defendant that a reasonable interpretation of the text messages was that the claimant had taken early steps to groom a child less than half his age. The judge was satisfied that the CAWN was issued in circumstances envisaged by the guidance.
The claimant contended that relevant factors were not taken into account. The judge rejected the submission that the claimant’s good character was relevant to the decision to issue a CAWN. The fact that the claimant had not contacted JCP for 23 hours before the report was made and that the CAWN was not issued for a month after the last communication did not mean the risk posed by the claimant ceased. The judge accepted the defendant’s submission that the interpretation of the text messages was that the claimant had taken early steps to groom a child less than half his age. The guidance did not require the claimant to be questioned, and the judge considered that if the claimant had given his account that he had no idea the fare-paying passenger was a child and that she looked like an adult in her early twenties, it was highly unlikely that this would have resulted in a CAWN not being issued.
On irrationality, Mr Raja submitted that the decision was irrational because there was no active investigation or application for a Sexual Offender Prevention Order or Risk of Sexual Harm Order; the content of the messages was not of a sexual nature but polite communication between two individuals; there were no safeguarding issues with the girl; Police Sergeant Dover who first considered the matter stated there was no significant cause for concern; a CAWN is to be used mainly in urgent situations; and there was no evidence the claimant was seeking to take the child from the care or control of a person or organisation with parental responsibility. The judge rejected all these points. He held that the decision made by Detective Inspector Banfield was reasonably open to him having regard to all relevant circumstances. The fact that Sergeant Dover initially considered that the concerns arising from the text messages were not ongoing did not make it irrational for Detective Inspector Banfield to take a different view that they did give rise to significant concerns. The police records showed that Detective Inspector Banfield discussed the case with Sergeant Dover and after reviewing the circumstances they agreed a CAWN would be an effective disruptive measure. The judge held there was no need to interview the claimant and ask for his account because the text messages spoke for themselves.
Mr Raja advanced four allegations of procedural impropriety. First, the policy required that the CAWN be issued by a Protecting Vulnerable People Detective Inspector but Detective Inspector Banfield was not such an inspector. Ms Collier for the defendant accepted this was a departure from the guidance which she described as formal or minor. There was no Protecting Vulnerable People inspector available at the time and Detective Inspector Banfield had considerable experience in safeguarding matters. The judge accepted it was appropriate for him in the circumstances to take the decision and held that the fact that a CAWN was approved by a non-Protecting Vulnerable People Detective Inspector did not invalidate the CAWN because the process is not governed by statute or mandatory guidance. Second, the witness statement of JCP’s mother did not set out what her concerns were as required by the guidance. Detective Inspector Banfield accepted in a later witness statement that he did not have available the statement of JCP’s mother at the time he made the decision because she did not sign the statement until 24 March, but said he was aware that the child’s mother was fully supportive of the application because this was clear from the occurrence inquiry log and the discussions he had with Sergeant Dover. The judge considered that what Detective Inspector Banfield said was clear from the documentation and the judge had regard to the documentation. Third, consideration should have been given to serving the claimant with a translated copy of the CAWN, but there was no suggestion he had any difficulty understanding the notice. Fourth, the CAWN is only to be used in a very urgent situation. The judge held that the guidance did not so provide but stated that a proactive stance should be taken to issue the warning notice quickly, within 48 hours, once it had been authorised. Detective Inspector Banfield authorised the CAWN on 23 March at 22.27 hours and it was issued to the claimant on 25 March at 20.10 hours. The judge held there was no breach of the guidance. In oral submissions Mr Raja developed this point by submitting that one month after the text messages there was no significant cause for concern and therefore the CAWN should not have been issued. The judge rejected this submission. It was correct there were no further text messages but the claimant’s phone had been blocked since 26 February. The matter was under investigation between 4 and 6 March, there was a review on 23 March and the issuing of the CAWN on 25 March. The judge held there was no delay which invalidated the issuing of the CAWN one month after the events which gave rise to significant cause for concern.
On proportionality and Article 8, the judge noted that the claims had not been properly particularised. The defendant accepted that the issue of a CAWN may be capable of engaging the claimant’s Article 8 rights to a private life. Ms Collier submitted that any interference the claimant proved would be at the lower end of the scale. Following the issue of the CAWN the claimant lost his licence as a taxi driver, but according to his evidence he only worked evenings and weekends as a taxi driver to supplement his income and his full-time employment was at Tesco. The judge assumed that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were engaged but considered that any interference with those rights was necessary in the interests of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedom of others, and proportionate. The CAWN was issued to protect JCP and potentially other young girls from any risk posed by the claimant. In the case of JCP it had effectively disrupted that risk. The judge held the issuing of the CAWN was proportionate and justified.
In short, none of the grounds of challenge succeeded and the claim for judicial review was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs assessed in the sum of £4,000.
The claimant, a 31-year-old licensed taxi driver, sent a series of text messages to a 14-year-old girl, JCP, whom he had recently driven in his taxi. In the messages he asked her name, complimented her, told her his name, said it had been his good luck to pick her up, said he wished to pick her up again and said it would be a pleasure to do something for her. The girl’s mother and stepfather reported the messages to the police and asked for appropriate action. The CAWN was authorised by Detective Inspector Banfield on 23 March 2017. In his witness statement Mr Banfield said the comments were not what would be expected of a professional taxi driver towards a child fare and that given his experience of grooming offences he suspected the comments to be the start of a process that could lead to the child being exploited. CAWNs have no statutory footing. They are issued by Thames Valley Police in accordance with internal guidance entitled “Procedure for Investigation and Safeguarding of Young Persons through the use of child abduction warnings”. The guidance stated that CAWNs are aimed at tackling cases where young people under 16 place themselves at risk of significant harm due to their associations and the forming of inappropriate relationships. The guidance made clear that breach of a notice is not a criminal offence but that notices form part of an administrative process and may provide evidence to support the prosecution of other criminal offences or civil proceedings. The guidance provided that a CAWN could be issued if a child under 16 is the subject of reports suggesting their behaviour and association with a suspect is giving significant cause for concern.
The claimant challenged the decision on four main grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and disproportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On illegality, Mr Raja for the claimant submitted that the whole essence of section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is the prohibited conduct of taking and detaining and there was no evidence the child was going to be taken or detained by the claimant. Mr Justice Supperstone rejected this submission. He held that the guidance envisaged that a CAWN could be issued where a child under 16 is the subject of reports suggesting their behaviour and association with a suspect is giving significant cause for concern. The CAWN was issued because the claimant’s conduct towards JCP gave rise to significant cause for concern. The judge accepted the submissions for the defendant that a reasonable interpretation of the text messages was that the claimant had taken early steps to groom a child less than half his age. The judge was satisfied that the CAWN was issued in circumstances envisaged by the guidance.
The claimant contended that relevant factors were not taken into account. The judge rejected the submission that the claimant’s good character was relevant to the decision to issue a CAWN. The fact that the claimant had not contacted JCP for 23 hours before the report was made and that the CAWN was not issued for a month after the last communication did not mean the risk posed by the claimant ceased. The judge accepted the defendant’s submission that the interpretation of the text messages was that the claimant had taken early steps to groom a child less than half his age. The guidance did not require the claimant to be questioned, and the judge considered that if the claimant had given his account that he had no idea the fare-paying passenger was a child and that she looked like an adult in her early twenties, it was highly unlikely that this would have resulted in a CAWN not being issued.
On irrationality, Mr Raja submitted that the decision was irrational because there was no active investigation or application for a Sexual Offender Prevention Order or Risk of Sexual Harm Order; the content of the messages was not of a sexual nature but polite communication between two individuals; there were no safeguarding issues with the girl; Police Sergeant Dover who first considered the matter stated there was no significant cause for concern; a CAWN is to be used mainly in urgent situations; and there was no evidence the claimant was seeking to take the child from the care or control of a person or organisation with parental responsibility. The judge rejected all these points. He held that the decision made by Detective Inspector Banfield was reasonably open to him having regard to all relevant circumstances. The fact that Sergeant Dover initially considered that the concerns arising from the text messages were not ongoing did not make it irrational for Detective Inspector Banfield to take a different view that they did give rise to significant concerns. The police records showed that Detective Inspector Banfield discussed the case with Sergeant Dover and after reviewing the circumstances they agreed a CAWN would be an effective disruptive measure. The judge held there was no need to interview the claimant and ask for his account because the text messages spoke for themselves.
Mr Raja advanced four allegations of procedural impropriety. First, the policy required that the CAWN be issued by a Protecting Vulnerable People Detective Inspector but Detective Inspector Banfield was not such an inspector. Ms Collier for the defendant accepted this was a departure from the guidance which she described as formal or minor. There was no Protecting Vulnerable People inspector available at the time and Detective Inspector Banfield had considerable experience in safeguarding matters. The judge accepted it was appropriate for him in the circumstances to take the decision and held that the fact that a CAWN was approved by a non-Protecting Vulnerable People Detective Inspector did not invalidate the CAWN because the process is not governed by statute or mandatory guidance. Second, the witness statement of JCP’s mother did not set out what her concerns were as required by the guidance. Detective Inspector Banfield accepted in a later witness statement that he did not have available the statement of JCP’s mother at the time he made the decision because she did not sign the statement until 24 March, but said he was aware that the child’s mother was fully supportive of the application because this was clear from the occurrence inquiry log and the discussions he had with Sergeant Dover. The judge considered that what Detective Inspector Banfield said was clear from the documentation and the judge had regard to the documentation. Third, consideration should have been given to serving the claimant with a translated copy of the CAWN, but there was no suggestion he had any difficulty understanding the notice. Fourth, the CAWN is only to be used in a very urgent situation. The judge held that the guidance did not so provide but stated that a proactive stance should be taken to issue the warning notice quickly, within 48 hours, once it had been authorised. Detective Inspector Banfield authorised the CAWN on 23 March at 22.27 hours and it was issued to the claimant on 25 March at 20.10 hours. The judge held there was no breach of the guidance. In oral submissions Mr Raja developed this point by submitting that one month after the text messages there was no significant cause for concern and therefore the CAWN should not have been issued. The judge rejected this submission. It was correct there were no further text messages but the claimant’s phone had been blocked since 26 February. The matter was under investigation between 4 and 6 March, there was a review on 23 March and the issuing of the CAWN on 25 March. The judge held there was no delay which invalidated the issuing of the CAWN one month after the events which gave rise to significant cause for concern.
On proportionality and Article 8, the judge noted that the claims had not been properly particularised. The defendant accepted that the issue of a CAWN may be capable of engaging the claimant’s Article 8 rights to a private life. Ms Collier submitted that any interference the claimant proved would be at the lower end of the scale. Following the issue of the CAWN the claimant lost his licence as a taxi driver, but according to his evidence he only worked evenings and weekends as a taxi driver to supplement his income and his full-time employment was at Tesco. The judge assumed that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were engaged but considered that any interference with those rights was necessary in the interests of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedom of others, and proportionate. The CAWN was issued to protect JCP and potentially other young girls from any risk posed by the claimant. In the case of JCP it had effectively disrupted that risk. The judge held the issuing of the CAWN was proportionate and justified.
In short, none of the grounds of challenge succeeded and the claim for judicial review was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs assessed in the sum of £4,000.