In a significant judicial ruling, the High Court has rejected a medical doctor’s attempt to advance his judicial review claim against the Children’s Authority without the agency’s defense. Justice Robin Mohammed delivered the comprehensive written decision that simultaneously denied the Authority’s motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings, ensuring the constitutional challenge will be heard on its substantive merits.
The case originated from the Children’s Authority’s August 16, 2022 decision to remove the physician’s two minor children following allegations of abuse. The doctor subsequently filed a fixed-date claim on December 21, 2022, contending the removal was unreasonable, arbitrary, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and family life under sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Constitution.
Justice Mohammed characterized the doctor’s request for undefended proceedings as ‘draconian’ in nature, noting that such relief effectively amounted to a default judgment—expressly prohibited in fixed-date claims under Civil Proceedings Rules. However, the court demonstrated judicial flexibility by granting the Authority’s application for extended filing deadlines, acknowledging confusion regarding whether the agency qualified as ‘the state’ for procedural purposes, compounded by staffing transitions within its legal team.
The court determined that while the Authority missed the standard 28-day response window, the delay was relatively brief and unintentional. Justice Mohammed emphasized that the public significance of child protection matters and the seriousness of constitutional allegations warranted hearing the Authority’s evidence. ‘The prejudice to the claimant of a short further delay is outweighed by the greater prejudice to the administration of justice in deciding such a claim without the defendant’s evidence,’ the judgment stated.
Additionally, the court rejected arguments that the judicial review constituted an abuse of process or improper collateral attack on prior Children’s Court and Court of Appeal decisions that had upheld interim wardship orders. The ruling distinguished the current proceedings as addressing distinct public law and constitutional issues regarding the lawfulness of the initial removal—matters not previously adjudicated.
The court also denied an alternative application to stay proceedings pending parallel Family Court actions, reasoning that such suspension would unjustly delay resolution of constitutional complaints without advancing judicial efficiency. The Authority must now file its response affidavit within 21 days, with the case scheduled for case management conference on February 5. Costs determinations were reserved pending final resolution of the substantive claim.