Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment is concerned with whether Q should continue to be separately represented by an advocate in circumstances where her views as to the desired outcome of care proceedings issued by the Minister differ from those of the Guardian appointed to represent her.
At the conclusion of the hearing the Court held that she should continue to be represented by her own advocate. Subsequently, following a contested hearing, the Court granted a final care order. We now give our reasons for maintaining Q's own legal representation.
Q is a girl who attained the age of 14 in December 2010. She was therefore 13 years 8 months at the time of the hearing in September 2010.
On 27th November 2009, following presentation of an application by the Minister for a care order in respect of Q, the Court appointed Mrs Jane Ferguson as Guardian under Article 75 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 and also appointed an advocate for Q.
On 1st December 2009 the Court made an interim care order in favour of the Minister. Advocate Gilbert appeared for Q. It became apparent during the hearing that there was a difference of opinion between the Guardian and Q as to whether the making of an interim care order was appropriate. Advocate Gilbert spoke to put forward Q's views opposing the order on the basis that she considered that Q was of sufficient understanding to give instructions.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.