A (Appellant) v The Principal Reporter and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0166

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

The Principal Reporter, Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

Curator ad litem & Safeguarder

Lord Advocate

Issue

Did the Inner House err in finding that a children’s hearing acted lawfully in determining that the child’s father was not a “relevant person”, as defined in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Review of Contact Directions and Definition of Relevant Person) Order 2013 (“the 2013 Order”)?

Facts

This appeal relates to safeguarding measures in children’s hearings in Scotland. A children’s hearing is a hearing involving a panel of three lay persons, comprising a children’s panel, as provided for in the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”). A children’s hearing has jurisdiction to make compulsory supervision orders in relation to children. A compulsory supervision order is an order made in respect of a child who is considered to be in need of protection, guidance, treatment or control. A number of people have a duty to attend a children’s hearing, including the child (unless excused) and each “relevant person” who is notified of the children’s hearing (unless excused or excluded). A relevant person who is notified of a children’s hearing, unless excused or excluded, is obliged by statute to attend it and gains certain rights in respect of such proceedings. Section 200 of the 2011 Act defines a “relevant person”. The appellant, “A”, is the biological father of a child “M” (aged 15). A has no parental rights in respect of M. He was not named on the birth certificate. He has been in custody since 2013 for offences against M’s mother, “B”. He is subject to an order for lifelong restriction, which is a sentence of detention for an indeterminate period. He completed the punishment part of this sentence some years ago, but remains in prison under it. There has been no contact between A and M since M was under a year old. Neither B nor M wishes to have any contact with A. M, a child in need of additional support and guidance, was referred to the children’s hearing. M is now the subject of children’s hearing proceedings concerning a review of a compulsory supervision order. A was automatically a “relevant person” under statute, as defined in the 2013 Order. He sought to participate in the proceedings. B complained. B states that A’s offending has left her with serious trauma and poor mental health, affecting her capacity to parent M. B has made repeated applications to the children’s hearing to be excused from proceedings, which have been accepted on the basis that it is extremely difficult for her to attend hearings in the knowledge that A was to participate. At a panel on 23 November 2023, A was “undeemed” as a relevant person, meaning that the children’s panel decided to remove A’s status as a relevant person (“the Decision”). The children’s hearing ordered that A have no contact with M. The appellant challenges his exclusion from participation in decisions affecting his child. The “Principal Reporter” is an official responsible for making referrals to the children’s hearing. The curator ad litem and safeguarder for the child (“the Curator”) is appointed to represent M’s interests in these proceedings. B presented a devolution issue, which led to the Lord Advocate taking part in proceedings as an interested party.