Kieran Pugh

Kieran has been instructed in cases involving non-accidental injuries caused to children including allegations of shaking or causing extensive bruising or other marks (such as cuts or scratches). Kieran has dealt with cases involving parents over-feeding/starving children and severe chastisement (including a case where the chastisement was described as “endurance punishment”). 

Kieran has represented local authorities in the High Court in cases concerning the shaking of babies from case management to fact-finding and final hearing stages and in cases involving highly complex medical assessments (including substantively challenged medical assessments). He has represented children that have been left permanently injured as a result of parental abuse and often deals with cases where there are parallel police investigations or criminal proceedings and cross-disclosure is an issue. 

He has represented parents in cases concerning the murder of a child by a parent. He has also represented children’s guardians in cases involving the attempted murder of one parent by another including one case where the court appointed a Rule 16.4 Guardian on a private law application by the children’s grandmother when the local authority refused to issue proceedings. 

Kieran has represented local authorities in cases concerning trafficked children or where a minor has been married abroad in a religious marriage and then brought to the UK by an older spouse/family member. These cases involve complex legal issues of jurisdiction and require a cultural sensitivity. They are often complicated by managing the interaction between the family and criminal courts within the UK as well as liaison with the courts, social services and law enforcement of the originating country. 

Kieran is often instructed in both public and private cases concerning the sexual abuse of children including multi-generational sexual abuse. Kieran has represented local authorities or parents pursuing such allegations as well as parents or interveners defending such claims. He has also successfully appealed against findings of sexual abuse made against a father. 

He is often instructed in cases of chronic neglect, parental alcohol/substance misuse or domestic violence/abuse. 

Kieran also represents parents in private law child arrangement (contact/residence) proceedings including in cases of intractable hostility where contact is obstructed and there is a clear risk of one parent being alienated by another. 

He has represented both local authorities and parents in appeals before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 

Local Authority

Public Law Children

Human Rights

Alternative Families

MA Jurisprudence (Law), The Queen’s College, Oxford University 

BPP Law School (2006) 

Family Law Bar Association 

Middle Temple 

Kieran was the conference co-ordinator for the annual London Borough Legal Alliance (LBLA) annual public law conferences in 2013 and 2014. This was a conference for the solicitors of the London local authorities (about 50 delegates). 

London Borough of Hackney v P & Ors (Re Jurisdiction: 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention) [2023] EWCA Civ 1213
The leading authority on the relevant date for determining the child’s habitual residence. The issue had divided the High Court judges of the Family Division and required resolution. Kieran represented the Children’s Guardian in the Court of Appeal.

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust v A & Ors [2022] EWHC 2422 (Fam)
Kieran represented the intervening Local Authority who held parental responsibility in respect of a child who had been fatally injured in a suspected non-accidental injury and in respect of whom brain-stem death had been confirmed. The case concerned whether permission should be given for life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn inevitably resulting in death.

Re CS &DS (Children) [2022] EWFC 146
Kieran represented the Children’s Guardian in high conflict private law proceedings before Keehan J. The case involved serious allegations of a child being drugged and hair-strand testing being completed of the child in secret without court permission. The concerns led to the Children’s Guardian recommend a change of residence mid-trial. Keehan J observed, “In the whole of my career I have never known a guardian to take such a course of action… she was entirely right to act as she did.”

Re C, D & E (Children) [2022] EWHC 281
Care proceedings before Arbuthnot J. Kieran represented the children though their children’s guardian. The eldest (mid-teen) alleged a history of sexual abuse by her uncles. She was deemed competent but had severely complex mental health needs including PTSD and emotional dysregulation compounded by ASD manifesting as dissociation and multiple personalities emerging. Kieran successfully built a working relationship with her and supported her through three days of live oral evidence in the High Court securing findings against the perpetrators.

Re K (Cessation of Parental Responsibility) [2019] EWFC B54
Kieran was the leading junior for the local authority in the care proceedings concerning a child who had suffered a catastrophic brain injury inflicted by his father. The result of all this brain injury was such that the child had virtually no residual normal brain tissue and such that remained was only sufficient to keep him alive. Following on from proceedings an application was made to revoke the father’s parental rights. The application was supported by the local authority and was granted.

A Local Authority v M & Ors (Placement Order) [2019] EWFC 50
Care proceedings in the High Court. Kieran Represented the child, the youngest of a group of siblings who had been returned to Poland earlier oi the proceedings. Following a successful appeal by foster carers against a decision to place the subject child with her siblings in Poland, the case was remitted for rehearing before the High Court. Kieran successfully argued the new Guardian’s position supporting the making of a Placement Order with a care plan that the child be adopted by her foster carers. The case established proper consideration of “any other person” under 2002 Act.

Re C (A Child: Application for dismissal or withdrawal of proceedings) (No. 3) [2017] EWFC 37
Care proceedings concerning allegations of radicalisation. Kieran represented a father accused of fighting for ISIS before returning to the UK when an alleged attempt to relocate the mother and baby to Syria was blocked by the authorities. The local authority brought an application inviting summary dismissal or proceedings or permission to withdraw after the Home Secretary succeeded in an application to withhold evidence on the grounds of public interest immunity and the local authority was faced with a fact-finding hearing with limited evidence.

Re C (A Child) No. 2 – (Application for Public Interest Immunity) [2017] EWHC 692 (Fam)
Care proceedings concerning allegations of radicalisation. Kieran represented a father accused of fighting for ISIS before returning to the UK. Care proceedings commenced after limited information was passed from counter terrorism police (SO15) to the local authority regarding acts of terrorism abroad and they had removed the child under powers of police protection. The local authority issued care proceedings but the Secretary of State for the Home Department objected to disclosure of any evidence on grounds of public interest immunity.

Re C (A Child) [2016] EWHC 3171 (Fam)
Care proceedings concerning allegations of radicalisation. Kieran represented a father accused of fighting for ISIS before returning to the UK. Care proceedings commenced after limited information was passed from counter terrorism police (SO15) to the local authority regarding acts of terrorism abroad and they had removed the child under powers of police protection. The local authority issued care proceedings but the Secretary of State for the Home Department sought to set aside the order for disclosure having already attempted to put the material before the court to the exclusion of the parties bypassing the closed material procure and the public interest immunity procedure. Application refused.

The London Borough of Ealing v AR [2014] EWHC 2172 (Fam) (1 July 2014)
Fact Finding hearing in the High Court concerning severe head injuries leading to permanent brain damage to a baby. Court invited to conclude that it was not possible to identify the perpetrator but the judge felt able to go further and identify the person that had caused the injuries to the child.

London Borough of Ealing v JM & Ors [2014] EWHC 1467 (Fam) (29 April 2014)
Successfully opposed an appeal against care and placement orders brought by a grandmother. Holman J rejects the grounds of appeal but is concerned that the children may be separated in circumstances where this wasn’t considered at first instance. The local authority assured the court that no such separation was contemplated for these children.

Re S (Care: Habitual Residence) [2010] EWCA Civ 465
Appeal against decision to ward and order the return of a child to the UK after she had been taken to Spain prior to the issuing of care proceedings. The issue was whether the child had lost habitual residence in England when she was removed to Spain. It was held that the judge was entitled to assume that the child was raised in England and was therefore still a resident in England for the purposes of the emergency application. However, the order for peremptory return was not justified as no welfare analysis had been undertaken and the return order was a welfare decision to be taken on proper evidence. The return order was set aside.