header-logo header-logo

14 March 2025 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Features , Family , Child law
printer mail-detail

Habeas corpus & challenging care orders

211161
Is there any room for habeas corpus in the modern regime surrounding care orders? Only very exceptionally, the Supreme Court has ruled: Nicholas Dobson reports
  • In The Father v Worcestershire County Council [2025] UKSC 1, habeas corpus was not available to challenge a care order since the appropriate procedure would be either an appeal or an application to discharge the care order under s 39 of the Children Act 1989.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (now simply habeas corpus—an order to produce the body (person)), is an ancient common law prerogative writ by which the sovereign exercises a right to inquire into why any of his subjects have been deprived of liberty. Although recorded by Blackstone in 1305, this appears to have been used before Magna Carta in 1215. Nowadays, habeas corpus is exercised by the High Court at the instance of an aggrieved applicant (see CPR 87). If the detention has no legal justification, release of the relevant party is ordered. As Lord Esher MR explained in Barnardo

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll