A mother who was arrested at Heathrow Airport while “attempting to leave the jurisdiction” was detained by police and taken to the Royal Courts of Justice the following day. It’s said the mother had failed to comply with a court order requiring her to disclose the location of her son and other details.
This is a difficult case to report. It was explained at the beginning that there had been seven other hearings in this matter before the court. No introduction or background to the circumstances by which the location orders were made or how the family came to be before the Family court was given.
One reason for this could be explained by the warning given to Mr Mani Basi, the barrister representing the father, by Mrs Justice Roberts as the mother entered the witness box:
“I think we need to be careful in terms of the questions… I mean the concern is to establish the whereabouts of [young person]. In the context of any of any other proceedings the privilege against self-incrimination would be available. The focus must be on the child.”
The judge added “she is not represented, she has no public funding, these are not committal proceedings“.
I contemporaneously tweeted these comments at the time and I’m grateful to barrister Jacob Gifford Head who drew my attention to the relevant section of the Children Act.
Mr Basi explained that the court was concerned with the “welfare of one child only” but there had been “difficulty locating the mother“. It was said that the mother had not showed up for the hearing listed on the previous Monday.
It was under these circumstances that the mother had been arrested at Heathrow Airport. Asked where she was flying Mr Basi said he didn’t know but that the police statement made reference to Rwanda Airlines.
Having checked how the mother preferred her name to be pronounced the judge spoke directly to her: “Good afternoon, my name is Mrs Justice Roberts, I wonder if you would be good enough to enter the witness box as counsel have a few questions for you”.
After the mother had been sworn in with the assistance of a Somalian interpreter Mr Basi began his questioning:
“Yesterday you refused to provide your mobile phone to the police, can you please provide the number to the court“
A number was read out.
“You refused to provide an e-mail address, please provide it now“
“Why do you need my email?“
“Because I am asking for it please” replied Roberts J.
An e-mail address was given.
“Can you also provide the court with the address where you live?“.
An address in Camden was provided.
“Your son, where is he?“
“He is with me“
“Where is he now?“
“He is in Kenya, he was living with me“
“When did he go to Kenya“
“June last year“
“Is he with his brother?“
“He is staying with my mother and his siblings“
“Who is he with now?“
“He is with his brother and with my mum“
“In terms of his bothers, where is [brother]?“
“Why do you want to know?“
“Because these are the questions which the court need answers to “
The judge interjected to say “if [Mr Basi] asks a question which is inappropriate I will interrupt…This is my court, if I require you to answer a question you will answer it“.
Asked “Will you write down a precise address where [son] is stating in Kenya?”
The mother replied “I am not giving anyone my mothers address, that man will kill my mother”.
This was the only glimpse into what is no doubt a very complicated and nuanced back story.
Asked if she would give the address to the court she said she would but it would have to be retrieved from her mobile phone, which we were told by the tipstaff was still on the prison van.
How long would it take to retrieve – the prison officer said “it’s a long way away from here“. Describing its location the judge exclaimed “oh my goodness that shouldn’t take more than about 5 minutes“. The court adjourned and a large plastic bag entered the courtroom about nine-minutes-later.
The phone was located and turned on.
“While the phone is on, could my solicitor attempt to call it?” asked Mr Basi.
“This number gives a not available dial tone, could she inform us of the correct number?”
It turns out the sim card had been removed.
Roberts J: “Who removed the sim card because she used the phone in the course of being arrested“
We were told she had been connected to the airport WiFi to make the call.
Mr Basi was allowed to approach the witness box to examine the phone to attempt to retrieve its number and the address.
“Could you hand the telephone please to Mr Basi, he’s not going to remove it” said the judge.
After a few moments of tapping Mr Basi explained he couldn’t access the number “It’s quite difficult, when I click on her profile everything is there except her number.
“As part of the location order she needs to give the address of the subject child so until she does she is still in breach.“
Roberts J replied “It seems that if [mother] wants to leave this court and return home this evening she needs to give the address… I can make a direction she is retained in custody and brought back tomorrow morning…she needs to rectify the breach…I’m not very impressed by any of this, if you could communicate this to her“
The mother explained via the interpreter that the address was located in an e-mail which couldn’t be viewed without internet access.
Roberts J: “A suggestion is made that the court wifi is made available to this witness“
Mr Basi: “I have it but I don’t have a log in“
At 16.13 the address is finally found. It has taken 18 minutes. It’s written down on a piece of paper and handed up to the judge.
Roberts J: “Mr Basi, I think we have secured the address, it looks like an address. I’m going to direct that this is released to you“
I must admit being concerned that the mothers previous assertion that the father might use the address to cause harm to the family did not result in strict disclosure conditions being made.
“I’m not sure what we do about the telephone number” was Roberts J last concern.
“She says her mobile phone sim card is at home“.
Mr Basi suggested that the mother could be ordered to attend court this coming Monday at 09.30am. A penal notice could be added to the order it was said.
Roberts J asked “You’re not seeking to persuade me to keep her in custody until then?“
Mr Basi replied “I accept there are no grounds to keep her on remand“
In parting words the judge told the mother:
“You will be free to leave when you leave this court building, you must come back for the hearing scheduled next Monday, if you don’t come you are likely to be rearrested, and you will want to avoid that. You are free to take your belongings with you....When you come back on Monday I need the contact details of your mother, details of the school…What I want is the contact details of the family members who are living at this address“.
Mouse in the Court 