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

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll