Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Family Law

The leading authority on all aspects of family law

16 DEC 2014

Birmingham City Council v Riaz and Others [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam)

Birmingham City Council v Riaz and Others [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam)
(Family Division, Keehan J, 15 December 2014)

The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2015] 2 FLR 763

Domestic violence and harassment - Injunction - Inherent jurisdiction - 10 men found to have sexually exploited 17-year-old girl

The full judgment is available below

Civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction were made against 10 men found to have sexually exploited the 17-year-old girl to prevent them from making contact with her or any other female under the age of 18.

The 17-year-old vulnerable young person was alleged to have been the victim of child sexual exploitation by at least 10 older men. Initially the local authority sought a secure accommodation order but it proved to be ineffective in providing the necessary protection.

There was insufficient evidence to secure criminal convictions against the 10 men and, therefore the local authority sought civil injunctions under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent any further contact or association with the girl or with any female under the age of 18, previously unknown to them in a public place.

The orders sought were drafted with reference to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Sexual Offences Prevention Orders and Risk of Sexual Harm Orders).

The court found that it was appropriate to grant the local authority permission to apply for the orders sought pursuant to s 100(3) of the Children Act 1989. It was submitted that the case raised matters of such general public importance that the hearings should be held in public. Interim reporting restriction orders were made to protect the identity of the victim and the 10 men.

At the final hearing there was no issue with the continuation of the RRO in respect of the victim but it fell to be determined whether the men had been engaged in sexual exploitation and whether the RRO should continue in respect of them.

It was held that all 10 men had been engaged in the sexual exploitation of the girl. The evidence demonstrated that the girl was known in the local area as a vulnerable young girl who could be persuaded to participate in sexual activity with older Asian men. There remained a real risk that the men would seek to sexually exploit other vulnerable young girls under the age of 18. The terms of the order were fair, necessary and proportionate to the risk identified.

An RRO protecting the identity of defendants in a criminal case heard in open court in order to protect family members could only be contemplated in exceptional circumstances. In this instance although publicity about the men might cause embarrassment, distress or anxiety, it would not have occurred if they had not engaged in sexually exploitative behaviour. Such cases attracted considerable and widespread public interest and there were exceedingly powerful arguments in favour of the public knowing the details of them.

The balance clearly fell in favour of the Art 10, European Convention rights of the press. The RROs in respect of the 10 men would be discharged.



Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4247 (Fam)

Case No: BM14P09068
BM14P09069
BM14P09070
BM14P09071
BM14P09073
BM14P09074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 15 December 2014

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEEHAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Applicant

- and -

(1) SARFRAZ RIAZ
(2) MOHAMMED JAVED
(3) NAZEEM KHAN
(4) SHAH ALAM
(5) MANSUR AHMED
(6) RAHMAN AZIZ
(7) IMRAN UDDIN
(8) OMAR AHMED
(9) MOHAMMED ANJAM
(10) SAJID HUSSAIN
(11) WEST MIDLANDS POLICE
(12) AB
Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lorna Meyer QC, Stefano Nuvuloni and Heather Popley (instructed by Birmingham City Council) for the Applicant
David Kelly (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Ahmed Williams) for the 8th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (pro bono) for the 8th Respondent
Joanna Chadwick (17 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9th Respondent
Juliet Allen (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Duncan Lewis) for the 9th Respondent
Sarah Simcock (19 November 2014 hearing) (instructed by Joint Legal Services, Birmingham ) for the 11th Respondent
Poonam Bhari (19 November 2014 hearing onwards) (instructed by Greens) for the 12th Respondent

Hearing dates: 13, 17, 22, 27 October 2014
17, 19, 20, 27 November 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Please see attached full judgment Birmingham City Council v Riaz
Family Law Online

Family Law Online

Get a FREE trial today! The fastest way to access the latest law reports, case law, commentary,...

Available in Family Law Online
Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports

"The unrivalled and authoritative source of judicially approved case reports, covering all areas...

More Info from £166.00
Available in Family Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters