header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2025 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8108 / Categories: Features , Family , Child law
printer mail-detail

Habeas corpus & challenging care orders

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll