Public Law Outline (PLO) relaunch: current status and key updates

Callum Hurley reviews important recent developments in relation to the Public Law Outline.

In 2022, the President of the Family Division announced a need to reconnect with the core principles of the Public Law Outline (‘PLO’), as set out in PD12A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. A priority goal of the Public Law Outline relaunch was, and remains, to reduce the amount of time that care proceedings take to conclude, noting that, in any event, they should conclude within 26 weeks from the date that the application was issued (s32(1)(a) CA 1989).

“A View from The President’s Chambers: November 2022” set out in some detail the reasons for relaunching the Public Law Outline. In short, those reasons included: a 25% rise in s31 applications and the impact of Covid 19 leading to only 23% of cases concluding within 26 weeks in 2021.

Two years after the Public Law Outline (PLO) Relaunch: What has changed?

There have been several notable shifts over the last couple of years. Some of these shifts are not new, but rather follow a ‘back to basics’ approach in attempting to ‘make cases smaller’.

Some headline examples include:

  • Bundles: A renewed effort to limit court bundles to 350 pages; a reminder to practitioners on page limits for specific documents, as set out in PD27A.5.1-5.2 (see also local practice note 8a dated 28 June 2024).
  • Experts: the President’s View 2022 noted there had been a 33% increase in the use of experts since 2016/17. The dicta within case law which has followed is therefore unsurprising:
    • West Northamptonshire Council v KA & Ors [2024] EWHC 79 at [45-46] – Lieven J reminds practitioners of the need for “compelling reasons” for the appointment of an intermediary; where an intermediary is appointed, it will be “exceptionally rare” to be appointed for a whole trial [45]. The application must include an analysis of why the Advocates’ Gateway falls short of the assistance required to resolve the proceedings justly.
    • West Northamptonshire Council v The Mother (Psychological Assessments) [2024] EWHC 395 (Fam) at [22] – Lieven J notes that it is common within public law proceedings that “parents may struggle to absorb information, to understand the proceedings and to concentrate… the solution to this problem is not, in the majority of cases, to have cognitive assessments and appoint intermediaries. It is for all the professionals involved, including lawyers and judges, to bear closely in mind the need to use simple language, avoid jargon, and where appropriate check that a litigant has understood what is being said. That is all set out in the Advocates Gateway”.
    • London Borough of Enfield v E (Unconscionable Delay) [2024] EWFC 183 at [89] – MacDonald J emphasises that applications for further assessment of parents may act as nothing more than false hope in some circumstances: “…to continue to pursue assessments in the face of clear forensic evidence that a parent does not have the capacity to parent their child not only causes prejudicial delay for the child.  It also amounts, ultimately, to cruelty masquerading as hope for the parent.”
  • “Making cases smaller”:
    • There has been a notable increase in local court centres timetabling through to IRH (a key objective of ‘relaunching the PLO’ was to limit cases to 3 hearings: the CMH, IRH and, if necessary, the final hearing).
    • Standard timescales are being applied to local authority assessments (see local practice note no4 dated 14 February 2023). 
    • Rigorous policing of ‘urgent’ applications.

Public Law Outline Relaunch: Aims and Future Goals

In April 2024, the Family Justice Board agreed on three priorities to be achieved by 31 March 2025 in public law cases:

  • No open public law case longer than 100 weeks;
  • Average timeliness for care and supervision cases to be 32 weeks;
  • At least 81% of all new cases to be completed in 26 weeks.

Implementing the Public Law Outline Relaunch: Strategies and Execution

  • A refocus on the purpose of IRHs: The ‘View from the President’s Chambers: July 2024’ makes plain that there will be a reinvigoration of the purpose of IRHs:
    • Practitioners will be expected to prepare for an IRH as if it is a final hearing with the possibility of evidence being heard.
    • Court centres will be expected to allot sufficient time for judges to prepare a case; a list of 4-5 IRHs per day does not allow a judge sufficient time to prepare.
  • Greater emphasis on executive summaries to assist the court: In my recent experience, and in the spirit of ‘making cases smaller’, some court centres are stressing the need for there to be separate court and advocate bundles. The purpose seemingly being to permit the advocate to survey all the evidence (which may sometimes be more than 1000 pages), produce a succinct and concise case summary/note of key documents, and mitigate the need for documents (or classes of documents) to be included within the court bundle. The aim being on ensuring the court bundle is limited to only those documents necessary to read or refer to in the hearing.
  • In addition, in cases involving drug test reports, the expectation is to include:

a) The statements of those who are alleged to have exposed the children to the drugs identified;

b) Other evidence (i.e., from observation) which may suggest drug use within the home;

c) Other evidence which may suggest that drugs are not used within the home;

d) The presentation of the children and the adults;

e) The history of the family generally (see Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498 at [58]).

Concluding remarks

As part of the Public Law Outline reliance, the renewed focus on IRHs, including hearing evidence, is likely to require a shift in expectations by all those involves: the preparation may well be similar to that of a final hearing. It will be vital that all those involved continue to work collaboratively to ensure momentum is not lost.

In my view, some top tips for ensuring good preparation may include:

  • Advocates to receive a full advocate bundle sufficiently in advance of a hearing which contains the same pagination index as the reduced court bundle.
  • The advocate to be instructed for the advocates’ meeting in addition to the relevant hearing. If the advocate is not instructed, a full note addressing the points contained at PD12A1.3 relevant to those meetings.
  • A summary/note of the key advice given to the client, when it was provided and any notable responses.
  • A conference with the client to be arranged sufficiently in advance of the IRH, ideally not less than 3 days beforehand to allow the client time to digest any difficult advice and prepare for the IRH in the event final decisions may be made.

Callum Hurley is a barrister at Unit Chambers.
A&M Bacon