QB-2022-002447 - [2025] EWHC 2803 (KB)

C2 alleges breaches of operational duties and systemic duties under Articles 2, 3 and 8. No challenge is made in this Application to the systemic allegations.

A challenge is made to those HRA claims under the category of “operational” duty under which it is said that a protective duty was owed to C2 in respect of her rights arising, in other words that D1 knew or ought to have known of the risk of death or ill-treatment to C2 by reference to ( in respect of Article 2), Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police [2009] 1 AC 225 at para [29]; and as to Article 3, AB v Worcestershire County Council & Birmingham City Council [2023] EWCA 529 at para [56]. In respect of Article 8, reference is made to MP & Others v Bulgaria Application no. 22457/08 @[108].

Mr Bowen submitted that even though C2 was not mentioned in any notes made (as is now accepted) the duty nonetheless arises as the local authority ought to have known there was a potential victim living with C3. Her specific identity need not be known. Further, they should have realised that he presented a real and immediate threat to her, and such is pleaded as arising on the day of his assessment. Although, contrary to earlier assertion, she was never identified, there is sufficient Mr Bowen submits for the case to continue in respect of her. Notes in the records dated 2017 and 2018 are mentioned which refer to a physical risk to “family members”.