Judge criticises police force over “unjustifiable” redactions in child proceedings case

In Warwickshire County Council v BN & Ors [2025] EWHC 2080 (Fam) (14 January 2025), Mrs Justice Lieven stressed that if the police are seeking to redact documents which are “otherwise disclosable”, they must “clearly explain the justification for those redactions”.

The judgment concerned Warwickshire Police's response to a series of Police Disclosure Orders (PDOs) in a public law Children Act 1989 case, and in particular the redactions that the police sought to impose on the disclosure sought.

The evening before the hearing before Mrs Justice Lieven in November 2024, Warwickshire Police conceded that all the redactions should be removed and therefore, the issue had become academic.

The judge said that in the light of the fact that the case was then in Week 42 and the police's position had resulted in "both an unnecessary hearing, and a considerable waste of public funds", she decided it was appropriate to produce a short judgment.

Judgment was handed down on 14 January, but not published on Bailii until this week (4 August).

The background to the case was that a young child, only a few weeks old, was presented to hospital in January 2024 with intracranial and retinal haemorrhages consistent with a "shaking" injury.

Public law proceedings were commenced by the local authority later that month in respect of the child and their older sibling and they have been in foster care ever since.

The case was allocated to HHJ Walker, who made four relevant Police Disclosure Orders.

Mrs Justice Lieven said the contentious order was made in September 2024, which provided as follows:

"1. The Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police shall by 4pm on 18th September 2024 disclose to the Local Authority the following information:

i. Unredacted copies of all disclosure provided to the local authority thus far.

ii. Audio/video of the parents' first police interviews..... (they having been provided already but corrupt and therefore not accessible).”

At the hearing before HHJ Walker there was consideration of the need to ensure that there could be a fair hearing, and in particular that the parents had appropriate material to ensure that they could fairly put their case.

A particular concern was raised about the fact that the disclosure that the police had provided was so heavily redacted that at times it was very difficult to understand.

Lieven J noted: “The Police had made no PII [Public interest immunity] application and put in no statement, whether through the Protocol Procedure or directly to the Court, setting out the justification for the redactions.

“As but one example of the scope of the redactions, the name of the consultant paediatrician, Dr O, and of the hospital, XX Hospital, had been redacted. At no point was any justification advanced for this redaction, save for the most generalised points about protecting third party confidentiality.”

Lieven J criticised the police force for acting “quite unreasonably” in the case, in relying upon “effectively unjustifiable redactions”.

She said: “The scheme of the 2013 Protocol and the 2024 Protocol is to achieve a consensual process between the Police and the LA. It may be that there have been some delays by the LA in the early stages of this process. That may have resulted in a lack of clarity before September 2024 as to precisely what was required and why. However, that matters not because once the Police received HHJ Walker's order.... they continued to seek to uphold the redactions until the evening before the hearing.”

She observed that if the police are seeking to redact documents which are “otherwise disclosable” then they must clearly explain the justification for those redactions.

The High Court judge outlined the following two problems in the case: "Firstly, there was no explanation whatsoever for the redactions when they were first made. Secondly, when DC H did set out her explanation it did not stand up to detailed (or indeed any) scrutiny, which is doubtless why the Police changed their position."

Concluding the judgment, Lieven J said: “The redactions appear to have been made entirely by rote, for example removing all third party names, including that of doctors and hospitals, that were obviously disclosable. No thought was given to the justification for the specific redactions.

“This failure by the police has led to both delay and significant waste of public funds. In the future the Police must consider whether each redaction is justified, taking into account the law as set out in Dunn. If they fail to do so and that leads to unnecessary hearings and expense, then the Police are at risk of a costs order.

"In this case no party applied for their costs, but I note that the legally aided parties have a duty to the Legal Aid fund and there would have been a strong case for costs to be awarded against the Police here."

Lottie Winson