This court judgment – [2025] EWFC 374 – has been published with two names: one is Re A (A Child) (Mother killed by Father) and the other: Linda Westcarr v Gogoa Lois Tape (1) A (2) The Paternal Grandmother (3)The Paternal Grandfather (4) and The London Borough of Haringey (5).
A is a child now aged five; Ms Westcarr is her maternal grandmother and the mother of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche, who was murdered by A’s father, Mr Tape, in April 2024. The judgment includes some quotations from the sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. It appears that A has lived with Ms Westcarr continuously since shortly after her mother’s death.
Ms Westcarr asked for some of the usual reporting restrictions to be lifted – we discuss this below.
Issues for the court
The judge was asked to resolve the following questions:
i) Should a special guardianship order (SGO) be made in favour of the applicant maternal grandmother?
ii) Should the respondent father’s parental responsibility (PR) be revoked?
iii) Should there be a change to the child’s name?
iv) Should a child arrangements order be made in favour of the paternal grandparents, and if so, on what terms?
v) Should a s 91(14) order be made with respect to the First Respondent and or paternal grandparents, and if so, for what duration?
vi) Should a transparency order be made and if so in what terms?
The main decisions made by HHJ Willans at West London Family Court were:
A SGO was made to Ms Westcarr. This had not been argued against by any of the parties.
A’s surname would be changed to remove Mr Tape’s name.
Mr Tape’s PR was revoked. The judge said:
‘Mr Barnes for Ms Westcarr makes the point that such a decision will not prevent a future application to reinstate parental responsibility should the circumstances materially change. This is correct but for my part I find it difficult to currently conceive of such circumstances.’ [para 35]
A s 91(14) order was made to protect the child and grandmother against any applications by Mr Tape, to last for the whole of A’s childhood.
A child arrangements order was made for indirect contact only in the form of letters to A twice a year from the paternal grandparents, together with a s 91(14) order regarding those grandparents to be in force until A turns 12.
The Transparency Order
The judge had considered submissions by a Mr Woods from the Times but we think this is probably David Woode, who is their crime reporter.
A transparency order was made and the judge had intended to publish the judgment anonymously. However, unusually, Ms Westcarr, the press and guardian had all asked for the right to report the identity of the maternal grandmother and A’s mother and father. A and the paternal grandparents will not be named. The judge said:
The local authority has questioned the propriety of naming the family members on the basis that this will risk identifying the child. I have considered these points but reject them as there is very clear evidence of existing reporting in the public domain concerning the criminal process which has already identified the family members in very clear terms. This judgment will join up public understanding, but it will not go any further to identifying A than the reporting to date will have done. [para 55]
We are surprised the local authority took that line, as the maternal family and the Cafcass guardian were in favour of the identification application and the paternal family didn’t object. As the judge pointed out, there had been considerable publicity about A’s family already. We can’t see anything in the published judgment that would create any further risk of A being identified. Although the local authority have an interest in the case because they will be responsible for a special guardian support package, they hadn’t applied at any stage to share PR. We’re left with the impression that this may have been more an attempt to restrict the maternal family from speaking up about their perceptions of local authority failings, than a concern about A’s welfare..
The judge decided not to name the individual social worker, because the matters Ms Westcarr wanted to talk about in the public domain related to the local authority as an organisation, not to him, and because his name was not needed for reporting purposes. The judge was concerned that criticism of the local authority might wrongly attach to the social worker if he was named.
The criticism being made of the local authority by Ms Westcarr related to decisions they had made not to issue court proceedings themselves. The judge took the view that in all the circumstances, the local authority had not failed in its duty to the family.
However, he did say:
I agree there have been some procedural errors. There was delay in the appointment of the guardian and in the reallocation of the matter to High Court level. Having said this the Court acted promptly to safeguard the interests of the child and made immediate decisions which can be seen with hindsight to be well judged. In due course the necessary procedural steps were taken. Ultimately A’s placement with her grandmother was secured and the dispute (such as it was) was contained within the secure environment of the Court. It is disappointing it has taken so long for there to be a resolution although it is not obvious from the procedural timeline where time savings could have been made [para 65]
We have yet to see any media coverage of the judgment, although Ms Westcarr is featured by the BBC here – Call to stop benefits for mentally ill offenders and in The Independent here – Mother of woman killed by boyfriend tells Starmer justice system is ‘broken’.
Legal aid
The judge concluded by saying:
I would wish to pay tribute to the legal team for Ms Westcarr. They have represented her on a pro-bono basis, but this has in no way devalued the high-quality content of the work they have done and the submissions I have heard on her behalf. She is lucky to have received such support, and I am immensely grateful for their efforts which have been deployed on her behalf. Ultimately A has been the beneficiary of this work, and I am sure this is sufficient reward for Mr Barnes and the legal team behind Ms Westcarr. They have my thanks. [para 67]
Although applicants for SGOs are entitled to legal aid in care proceedings, this isn’t so straightforward in private law proceedings and may be one of the reasons Ms Westcarr felt the local authority should have taken a more proactive role. By leaving Ms Westcarr to fend for herself in private law applications, her eligibility to apply for legal aid was subject to means testing that may have ruled her out. For example, as explained here by the Kinship charity, a grandparent may be assessed as being over a capital limit if they own their own home, but not have anything like enough income or access to other capital to pursue a lengthy court case, even when everyone agrees her application is in the child’s welfare.
Image: West London Family Court