Author Archives: suesspiciousminds

Bit of a c( ) ck up on the old anger management front

Posted on March 29, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This case, decided by Ms Justice Russell, involved a 15 year old, an 11 year old and a 4 year old, all who had become involved in a private law contact dispute between their parents.

FY v MY 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/16.html

Readers may recall that Reggie Perrin had a brother-in-law, called Jimmy. Like all characters in Reggie Perrin, Jimmy had a catch-phrase and his was “There’s been a bit of a c( ) ck-up on the old catering front” – meaning that he needed to borrow a bit of money from Reggie to tide him over. [I’ve written the letter “o” here as brackets, to stop it being devoured by over-eager spam filters]

Jimmy also had plans to build his own (fairly) secret army, which was to be opposed to just about everything, including long haired weirdos, short haired weirdos, keg bitter, namby pamby probation officers and glue sniffers – I think Jimmy might do rather well in modern politics, as it goes. I think he might acquire a significant number of followers.

“Do you think so? I thought recruitment might be difficult”

In this case, here are the reasons that the father might have needed anger management

On the 1^st February 2014 K and M went to spend time with their father at 11 am; L followed later at noon having completed his homework. At 9:30 that night L arrived at home saying that their father had hit K so L had run away. MY tried to call K’s phone, FY’s apartment and FY’s mobile phone and when the phone was answered she could hear K who was very distressed and crying. When K got home at about 10:15 pm he was clearly very distressed.
The boys told their mother that FY had taken them to a restaurant and had made reference to a solicitor’s letter; a comment or response of L’s angered their father and L tried to explain to FY that he was not taking sides, at which point FY started to swear at them and call them abusive names. When K responded FY kicked at him under the table as a result of which K sustained abrasions and marks to his legs (which were seen the next day by his doctor and the court has seen the doctor’s report). They told their mother that their father kicked at L and punched his side. They left the restaurant and both boys sat in the back of the car as K did not want to sit in the front with his father. When K tried to phone his mother and his father saw this he told K not to call and tell her what had happened, but K continued to try to make the call. FY then attempted to take the phone away from his son whilst driving the car, by reaching around the car seats grabbing at K. L tried to intervene and became caught up in the altercation and said that he had been hit on the side of his face near his eye twice, he thought by his father’s elbow. From the pictures taken after the event it is apparent that L’s face was bruised and swollen on one side (the court has seen the doctor’s report about the injuries sustained by L).
When they arrived outside their father’s apartment building, as the boys later told their mother, the struggle between K and his father continued with FY pushing K into the building leaving K with red marks to his the left hand side of his face. About five minutes later at 9:35 pm L arrived at home in a distressed state. MY immediately tried to call K on his mobile and, as he did not reply, called the land line to FY’s apartment. She says that FY answered and she could hear her son crying and asked to speak to him but FY did not allow her to and put the phone down. About 50 minutes later FY returned K to his mother’s home. K was flushed and very upset, he and L sit close to their mother with their heads on her lap, crying. Both boys did not want to see or speak to their father. They were seen and checked over by their doctor on the 4^th February, who provided their mother with a short report which sets out their injuries and confirms they are consistent with the assaults as reported. I have seen the documents and accompanying photographs.
The day after, on 2^nd February 2014, according to their mother, K and L refused to speak to or see their father. FY phoned and asked to speak to L who did not want to speak to him. At about mid-afternoon FY called again and asked to see M, and for L to go to see him as well. L told his mother that he was scared that if he did not go his father will be angry with him. FY then started to call MY’s mobile phone, the landline and the nanny, repeatedly, to demand that L and M came immediately. MY told him, on the nanny’s phone, that M was on his way but that L would not be coming as he did not want to go. FY was abusive to MY and continued to make repeated phone calls which caused distress to the boys, their mother and the nanny. FY left the country that day and did not return until the 20^th March 2014. He chose not to attend court on the 13^th March 2014; a hearing which was to listed to review the contact agreed in December 2013.
The boys have continued to be affected by the events of the 1^st February. K has spoken to the teachers at his school about what happened and, entirely appropriately the school was concerned about what he had said and the events have been noted on his school records. It is their mother’s recollection that FY did not contact the boys until about 15^th February when L spoke to him briefly but K refused to speak to him. On 19^th February FY’s sister contacted K to try get him to contact his father but K was clear in his response to his aunt that he would not do so.
On the 23^rd February there is an exchange of text messages between father and son; K said that he did not want speak to or see FY “I already know the whole truth because you are a liar and mama is not.” In his response FY, again, raised the court case and texted “Didn’t u want to live in dubai?” K responds, “I don’t want to live with you you said you will never hit me again and you did …I wanted to live in Dubai but not with you.” His father responded “I did not hit u. I love u very much and I miss you.” K texted “You kicked me which is even worse”. FY went on in his text to say that K had hit him and that he had forgiven K, to which K responded “After you kicked me, and pulled my hair and scratched my face.” FY again made reference to the court proceedings and says that he was “fighting for” K and K replies “I don’t care about you and I don’t forgive you for kicking me.” When his father responded by texting that he forgave K and changed the subject to football but K texted; “Well I don’t and because you haven’t even apologised to me.” FY texted “I am sorry baba. I love u” and K texted back; “Fine I will give you one more warning but please don’t kick me again.” FY then asked K to apologise and promise that he will never talk like that to his father again. He was insistent that K posted (on social media) “something nice about ur baba in ur status message” and despite K’s responding three times that he wanted to sleep FY kept texting him. It was well after 10 o’clock at night when all this took place.

It must therefore have been momentarily pleasing to the Judge to learn that father was engaging in anger-management work. Momentarily pleasing.

On the 26^th September 2014 FY applied for interim contact. The case was listed before me on the 3^rd October 2014 and by that time the case came FY had undertaken an anger management course with a Dr A-M in Dubai. Doubts were raised about the efficacy of this course and it is a fact, as FY told me in his oral evidence, that Dr A-M is a friend of his of many years standing and that Dr A-M is now married to a member of FY’s family.
I have not heard evidence during this hearing regarding the suitability or otherwise of the course that FY undertook but I question the wisdom of undertaking a course run by someone who a reasonable and independent observer would consider to be unlikely to be able to maintain the requisite objectivity to lead successfully. On the face of it a longstanding friendship would be more likely than not to compromise the ability of any professional to challenge the behaviour, mind-set and prejudices of the participant, and it must be the case that any anger management course must rigorously challenge aggressive behaviour and personal misconceptions of a participant in order to be effective.

I don’t think that Dr A-M was quite a brother in law to FY, but certainly related to him by marriage, which is what put Jimmy in my mind. Well, that, and the fact that the father also brought sit-coms into the mix, by peculiarly comparing his son to Del-boy from Only fools and horses (?) (I know…) Of course, whilst Del-Boy’s catch phrase was “this time next year, we’ll be millionaires”, it is suggested elsewhere in the judgment that this might be a step-down in fortunes for FY rather than a pipe-dream.

FY told AFC [Anna Freud Centre – the experts instructed] that he wanted his children to be respectful towards him but that K had been brainwashed by his mother and Cafcass had added to it; he had not spoken to him for two weeks. He said that her family were using the children as hostages. He described L as like Del-Boy in Only Fools and Horses and said L “is a commercial guy you can bargain with him“. FY said he was angry with K that is why he did not call him – “culturally in this case he needs to apologise…I tell L if K wants to call me then he knows how to get hold of me…this conflict is a cultural conflict, they turn the British system against me – she is bringing them up to have disrespect for me.” When talking of the incidence of physical chastisement FY said “I regret nothing regarding the children – the only thing was I was an idiot to let her come back to London.” When asked if the anger management course had proved helpful he said that he had “never had an anger problem.” These comments of FY are illuminating and reveal the basis of his case, his approach to these proceedings and his attitude towards his ex-wife and children.

I suppose if you absolutely had to, on pain of death, describe one of your children as a character from Only Fools and Horses, that it would probably be better to go for the Del-Boy comparison than using Trigger, but that’s a small crumb of comfort. In all other circumstances though, don’t compare your children to Only Fools and Horses characters.

After various attempts to get contact back up and running, the case came back to Court

When the case came back to court there had been a breakdown in L’s relationship with his father. According to his mother’s written evidence (contained in her final statement dated 8^th January 2016) FY had continued to contact the boys, particularly L outside of the times set down in the court order. He continued to make reference to, and discuss, these proceedings with the boys. He had also attempted (and sometimes succeeded) in engineering encounters with the boys, for example to contrive to see L pass by on the bus to or from school. In isolation this latter action on FY’s part would be innocuous but it was part of a pattern of behaviour designed to go behind court orders and to involve the children in flouting the orders of the court. FY had become angry with L when his son told him that he had to comply with the court timetable for telephone contact. In any event the order was a generous one for contact to take place every day.
MY’ evidence was that it was sometime around the 16^th of October 2015 that FY last spoke to L and told him to “listen…listen carefully”; and, whatever the content of the conversation his mother said both in her written and oral evidence that L ended up screaming at his father down the phone saying that his father was ruining his life. L had not spoken to his father since. Nor has his father spoken to him or even tried to; his father told me during the hearing in January 2016 that he was still waiting for an apology from L; he betrayed no sign of the hurt and confusion he must be causing his son and it was obvious that he not only considered himself to be in the right but that he also considered himself, a fully grown man, to be the wronged party at the hands of a distressed and unhappy young adolescent. From the evidence before me it was not possible to say exactly when this incident on the phone took place but it was certainly before the hearing on the 5^th November 2015.

The father after the children met with Mr McGavin, the CAFCASS officer, tried to induce his son L to send him a text message that the father could produce in Court. The Judge was singularly unimpressed.

It was Mr McGavin’s evidence that the boys had a good relationship with him and could say what they wanted to him and I accept his evidence. He is a most experienced guardian and there is absolutely nothing in the way of evidence before me which could support FY’s case that Mr McGavin had told, or even suggested to, the boys what they might say about seeing their father. On the contrary he has assisted them to get their views across by encouraging them to tell him what they wanted the judge to know. The questions that he asked were open and when he told them of his recommendations there was never any suggestion that they were expected to go along with him. Both he and the Cafcass Legal lawyer were aware of the need for separate representation should it arise and had discussed it and kept it under review.
After this interview K had spoken to FY who, again, had discussed the case and the contents of Mr McGavin’s report with him. FY told me he had sent K the Cafcass report. He was entirely unrepentant his discussions with K in his oral evidence, he accepted it was in breach of the court order and was clearly of the opinion that he had not only done the right thing but that in doing so he had undermined any case that K did, in fact want contact supervised. He encouraged and prevailed upon K to send an email to FY, so that he could produce it in court, it read, “Hi baba, I am writing to say that. Yes I want to see you and hang out with you like I used to, I want to travel to Jeddah, Dubai, Middle East. And I just want to travel anywhere in the world with you. I know you have anger issues. So I will try not to be rude to you so you don’t end up hitting us. Thank you”
In my all my experience as both advocate and judge I find it hard to think of a more blatant example of attempted manipulation. The email, however, does not support FY’s case. The final two sentences are a reference to the previous physical abuse inflicted by FY on his son and to the unpredictability of FY’s temper, along with the fact that he places the responsibility for his abusive behaviour on the children, rather than with himself as their parent and the adult. It is a further example of FY’s controlling and manipulative behaviour. There can be little wonder that L used the word “manipulative” in his text to his father when he complained to him about his behaviour.
Mr McGavin concluded in his final analysis and in his oral evidence that the end of the road had been reached. This was based on repeated attempts to re-establish contact each of which had failed because of FY’s lack of co-operation and engagement with the professionals involved. In the end he withdrew from the process altogether. Neither boy had said wanted to see their father in the present circumstances, but the guardian was sure that they would both want to see FY if they knew they would be physically safe and emotionally safe. Mr McGavin asked that in view of K’s special needs a ‘no contact’ order should be made until he was eighteen, although this would be unusual and exceptional. He felt that K had his own vulnerabilities and that he needed the reassurance of the court order both for his own sense of security and to enable him to stand up to his father until he reached his majority.

The Judge was invited by mother to make orders that father have no face to face contact with the children (there would be telephone contact and Skype contact). The Judge analysed the father’s case and presentation in this way:-

FY’s written and oral evidence was characterised by his inability or unwillingness to begin to see, never mind accept, his own responsibility for the boys’ reactions or feelings about him and how his behaviour had affected them. As Mr Verdan QC, counsel for MY, said in his closing submissions there are many examples but that two of the most obvious and closest in time to the hearing are his refusal to ring L on his birthday and his determination not to ring him unless L rings first to apologise, and, FY’s discussion with K about the proceedings on the eve of the hearing. Not only did he discuss the case he sent K the guardian’s report in order to use it in an attempt to undermine the guardian’s recommendations by pressurising K into to sending him an email confirming “his wishes” as his father wanted them to be presented. It was more than apparent from FY’s oral evidence that he is unwilling or unable to understand any of his children’s emotional needs and does not accept that he has caused them distress, upset or harm, despite the evidence before the court of their obvious distress. His own ability to take umbrage at the behaviour of his young teenaged son when L became angry with his father for the pressure he was putting on him speaks volumes for FY’s need to put his own feelings and amour-propre before the needs of his child, therefore, to suggest that he can safely have contact with M alone is nothing more than a further manifestation of this wilful or inherent deficiency in his parenting.
I accept the submission on behalf of MY that it is nonsensical for him to assert that ‘he had no bad feelings for MY’ and wanted to speak to her in a constructive way. His actions and word to the court, in correspondence and, most seriously, to their sons over the last two years is evidence which is in stark contrast to his assertions. It was apparent from his oral evidence that FY is little short of obsessed about the maternal grandfather’s alleged role in these proceedings. I have found before, and there is no evidence to change my findings, that MY is an independent, sophisticated and intelligent woman who was not in 2013, and is not now in 2016, being controlled by her father in respect of these proceeding or, indeed, any other aspect of her life.
In his oral evidence FY obfuscated, avoided answering questions and dissembled; at times he displayed an almost complete inability directly to answer a question put to him and would use the witness box to air his own feelings of hurt, despair and, at times, apparent bewilderment. Mr Hames’ submission that FY’s answers were a catalogue of grievances against the mother, her father, the professionals and even the children (as when he blamed L for not apologising to him) has some force. He claimed that he hadn’t seen or read critical documents or failed to recall important details about events or conversations put to him. He had no explanation of why he used phrases such as “so ashamed to have sons like you” to L and it was extraordinary that he claimed never to have read the L’s essay (set out above) before giving evidence. Where his evidence conflicts with other witnesses I must and I do reject it.
Both MY and FY are dual-nationals; well-educated and cosmopolitan members of wealthy families who live an international life-style and to suggest anything else is dissonant with their own oral evidence and is not congruent with the totality of the evidence before this court.

It is my conclusion that it is both in the children’s best interests and proportionate for there to be an order for there to be no direct (face-face) contact between the children and their father. There have been repeated incidents of violence directed against the boys and the need for them to be physically safe is no small matter to be weighed in the balance. When he was no longer able to punish them physically FY’s response was to make L’s upset and distress when directed at his father was to make his life as miserable as he possibly could by withdrawing any semblance of support, understanding or affection. Having regard to this behaviour and because of his special needs, for K’s protection and his need for certainty, the no contact order for him is extended in the exceptional circumstances of this case to his 18^th birthday. All three children need to be given an opportunity to develop emotionally free from manipulation by their father and free from the oppressive and damaging effects of a background of continued litigation and conflict.
I have, quite deliberately, used parenthesis in the term “indirect” contact and as a matter of fact and logic, as Dr Asen would agree Face-Time or Skype is direct face to face contact and the same risks apply in respect of emotional harm with the corresponding need for supervision. With that in mind I will order that contact is limited to telephone contact as recommended by Dr Asen; one hour, 15 minutes for each boy and 15 minutes at the end. I will hear the parties about frequency.
The children need time out, time to recover and to grow. The changes which the father needs to make before reintroduction of contact will take at least 12 months on the best prediction and while Dr Asen plainly considers that the father may not be capable of making the required changes it is to be hoped that he does.

9 Comments

Posted in case law, international, private law and tagged 2016 EWFC 16, anger management, contact, contact dispute, FY v MY 2016, Ms Justice Russell, Russell J. Bookmark the permalink.

A sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham (diplomatic immunity)

Posted on March 23, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

I always love a diplomatic immunity case.

This is the Court of Appeal’s decision in Al-Juffari v Estrada 2016

Click to access approved_judgment_rhd_estrada_v_juffali.pdf

and is the one that sent our much-beloved (Subs, check this please) Foreign Secretary off crying to the Guardian and other places because we can’t have our naughty English Courts inconveniencing Saudi billionaires or where will it end?

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/22/hammond-criticises-judge-for-stripping-diplomatic-immunity-from-saudi-billionaire

Anyway, this relates to the claim by the Wife for a divorce in this country, and for a financial settlement. As the one detail that leapt out at me was the value of the former matrimonial home being about £100 million, one can see why.

Mr Al-Juffari claimed that the Court had no jurisdiction, because he was appointed by Saudi Arabia as the Permanent Representative of St Lucia.

At first instance, Hayden J made two decisions – first that in looking at this diplomatic immunity, the facts were that Mr Al-Juffari had not actually ever carried out any functions AT ALL in this role and this it was an

“artificial construct” designed to defeat the jurisdiction of the court;

This seems on the facts, quite reasonable to me. If you’re relying on a job to be your get out of jail card, at least have the decency to actually be doing that job. Otherwise it’s like playing Monopoly with someone who has at their immediate beck and call a printing firm to produce facsimile Get out of Jail cards as and when required.

[As a little tip, just don’t play Monopoly with Saudi billionaires – they are in a position to buy up Waddingtons*, and demand an immediate rule change in their favour be hand-delivered to every owner of a Monopoly set if they are losing. * Now Hasbro. Grrr. On the plus side, the Dubai version of Monopoly has some truly amazing hotels. ]

Having referred to a number of cases in which the compatibility of the grant of immunity from jurisdiction with Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“the ECHR”) has been considered, the judge concluded at para 34:

“The cumulative impact of this case law is, in my judgement, to identify a balance that has evolved, designed to protect the ‘functionality’ or ‘effectiveness’ of a mission and to recognise the need to minimise abuse of diplomatic immunity. It is this balance which both underlies the policy considerations and establishes the proportionality of the restriction in ECHR terms. If ‘functionality’ is extracted from the equation, because no functions have been discharged or, to adopt Diplock LJ’s terms, the diplomat is not ‘en poste’, there can remain only unjustified privilege or immunity linked solely to the private activities of an individual. If such is the case both the policy considerations and the proportionality of restriction cannot be justified in Convention terms and cannot be said to pursue a legitimate claim sufficient to eclipse W’s right of access to a court.”

21.

The reference to Diplock LJ was to Empson v Smith [1966] 1 QB 426 at p 429C. At para 35(vi) of his judgment, the judge found that since his appointment, “H has not undertaken any duties of any kind in the pursuit of functions of office”. He said that W had provided persuasive evidence that H’s health was such that he was not in a position at present to fulfil any ambassadorial duties. At para 36, he said:

“H has sought and obtained a diplomatic appointment with the sole intention of defeating W’s claims consequent on the breakdown of their marriage. H has not, in any real sense, taken up his appointment, nor has he discharged any responsibilities in connection with it. It is an entirely artificial construct. I draw back from describing it as a ‘sham’, mindful of the forensic precision required to support such a conclusion.”

22.

At para 40, he said that he was “not prepared to accede to H’s request to strike out W’s Part III claim on his spurious assertion of diplomatic immunity, as I find it to be.”

However, the Court of Appeal had to disagree (not that it was an artificial construct, but that the English Court had jurisdiction to inspect what was going on, rather than just taking the word of the Foreign Office that a person has diplomatic immunity)

Section 8 of the 1968 Act provides that, if a question arises in any proceedings before the English courts as to whether a person is entitled to any privilege or immunity, a certificate issued under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relating to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. I have set out at para 18 above the facts the truth of which is conclusively proved by the certificate in the present case. If the immunity of a Permanent Representative or diplomatic agent depends on establishing whether he has in fact performed the relevant diplomatic functions, then the certificate issued in this case is of little value. It does not purport to say anything about the functions performed by H. That is not surprising. The policy reasons justifying the conclusiveness of FCO certificates has been discussed most frequently in the context of issues relating to State immunity. For example, in The Arantzazu Mendi [1939] AC 256, Lord Atkin said:

“Our state cannot speak with two voices on such a matter [that is state sovereignty and matters flowing from it], the judiciary saying one thing, the executive another. Our sovereign has to decide whom he will recognise as a fellow sovereign in the family of states; and the relations of the foreign state with ours in the matter of state immunities must flow from that decision alone.”

As the FCP had provided a certificate saying that Mr Al-Juffari had immunity, that was the end of it.

The second question that Hayden J had to decide was whether Mr Al-Juffari was permanently resident in England. Why is that important? Well, because the Specialised Agencies Convention and the Headquarters Agreement which governs what rights, privileges and immunities a person who is a Permanent Representative has says this:-

“(1) Every person designated by a Member of the Organisation as its Permanent Representative or Acting Permanent Representative and the resident members of its mission of diplomatic rank shall enjoy, for the term of their business with the Organisation, the privileges and immunities set out in Article V, Section 13 of the [Specialised Agencies Convention].

and

(2A) In addition to the immunities and privileges specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the article, the Permanent Representative and acting Permanent Representative shall enjoy, in respect of themselves and members of their families forming part of their households, for the terms of their business with the Organisation, the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law.

but

(5)…Paragraphs (2) and (2A) shall not apply to any person who is permanently resident in the United Kingdom; paragraphs (1) and (2A) shall only apply to a person so resident while exercising his official functions. “

So if Mr Al-Juffari was permanently resident in the United Kingdom, he would only be immune for actions undertaken as part of his official functions (and as we’ve already established, he hasn’t done any. He certainly didn’t marry his wife as part of those functions)

On the facts, it seemed to me rather dubious that he was permanently resident in the United Kingdom

H was born in the Lebanon in 1955. He is a Saudi national and domiciled in Saudi Arabia. He is a member of a large Saudi family of immeasurable wealth. The family has, throughout his life, had a close connection with the UK. In particular, a substantial property, Bishopsgate House, near Windsor Great Park was bought many years ago by H’s father as a family estate for use in summer holidays. The family also had a flat in London. For a time H attended Oxford University before going on to university in the US.

71.

For many years H has had a visa which enables him to spend 180 days in the UK each year without compromising his non-resident tax status. In common with men of his wealth and background, he crosses and re-crosses the world, largely by private jet, staying in properties in various countries owned by, or on his behalf, through elaborate financial structures. The figures produced by Mr Alammari show the division of H’s time over recent years to have been largely spent between Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and the UK; the majority of his time over the period being spent in Switzerland closely followed by Saudi Arabia.

Can one really be permanently resident in a country where the visa only allows you to spend 180 days there? Note also the lack of time in St Lucia…

However,

H has been married three times. His first marriage in 1980, was to Basma Sulaiman, a Saudi national. There were three children by that marriage, M, D & H; each of whom (in common with all H’s children) were born at the Portland Hospital in London. It is common ground that at least the eldest of those children has a British passport.

73. Critical to his ultimate finding that H was permanently resident in the UK, the judge found in relation to this marriage (as with each of his marriages) that ‘the family home was based in the UK’ and that the children were educated in England and speak English.

In his overall analysis, Hayden J reached this conclusion that the choice of Mr Al-Juffari as to where to raise his children was a magnetic factor, and thus he concluded that Mr Al-Juffari was permanently resident in England. (I think he’s about as permanently resident in England as Sean Connery is permanently resident in Scotland, but the Court of Appeal say otherwise)

“65. In my survey of the background of H’s life (at para 51, above) I have endeavoured to identify key facts which point to permanent residence being established either in Saudi Arabia or in the UK. The fact that H does not enjoy leave to remain in the UK and that he is only permitted to visit for 180 days per year seems to drag the conclusion towards Saudi Arabia. Mr Pointer’s team have spent considerable time and effort drawing up a table setting out the number of nights H has spent in the UK on a yearly basis since 2009. That data has been further refined to include the average duration of trips to the UK and also the unbroken sequence of days spent here. This is helpful so far as it goes but, in my view, a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment is likely to illuminate intention more accurately. Of all the matters identified at para 50 one is, to my mind, magnetic in its attraction. H has been married three times. On each occasion the marriage produced children. For each reconstituted family unit the family home was based in the UK. W herself is habitually resident in the UK. The children of the first two marriages have all been educated here and, inevitably, all speak English. The youngest child, now from the third marriage, is pre-school age. There are three homes in the UK.

66. Where a man chooses to live with his wife and children, and I emphasise the element of choice, says a great deal, to my mind, about where he intends his home to be. When the circumstances of his life cause him to repeat that same decision throughout three marriages, it seems to me to signal an intention which is ‘unlimited in period’, to adopt Langton J’s phrase and therefore to qualify as permanent. I very much agree with Mr Pointer that both the case law and the Circular require me to give significant weight to H’s intentions but I have, on the facts of this case, come to a different conclusion from that contended by Mr Pointer. The evidence points very strongly, in my view, to establishing that these were the arrangements before H’s appointment and, on the basis that past behaviour is often a reliable predictor of future intention, the status quo was likely to continue. On this basis H also fails the ‘but for’ test in Jiminez v IRC (see para 48 above). By way of completeness I should add that I have not found it necessary to deploy either Article 6 of the ECHR or section 3 of the HRA to construe the meaning of permanent residence.

And thus, Mr Al-Jaffari does not get to hide behind diplomatic immunity to defeat his wife’s divorce claim. He won on the first point (where I think the facts were completely behind Hayden J but the law wasn’t) but lost on the second point (where I think the facts were pretty iffy but the law backed Hayden J up)

For the reasons that I have given, I consider that the judge was wrong to hold that H is not entitled in principle to immunity from W’s claim. But the judge was entitled to conclude on the facts that H is not entitled to immunity because he is permanently resident in the UK and the claim does not relate to any official acts performed by H in the exercise of his functions. I would dismiss the appeal. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the issues raised by the Respondent’s Notice.

The right outcome, although by a peculiar route. Having said that, I’m SURE Mr Al-Jaffari will appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal costs are miniscule compared to the sums that are being litigated here.

Comments Off on A sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham (diplomatic immunity)

Posted in case law, international and tagged 2016 ewca civ 176, al-jaffari v estrada 2016, appeal, Court of Appeal, diplomatic immunity, diplomatic immunity in family court, hayden j, permanent residence. Bookmark the permalink.

Contempt of Court and right to silence

Posted on March 22, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This is an intricate, but important, decision by the Court of Appeal. A man here was sentenced to six months imprisonment for failure to comply with an order, and the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It does seem that the man spent about five weeks in prison, and the Court of Appeal found that the decision was procedurally flawed in some significant ways.

Re L (A child) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/173.html

It relates to an application to commit to prison the Uncle of a child for contempt. The child had been the subject of care proceedings in 2004 (yes, 2004), and the parents had fled the country with her. The High Court had made some orders under the inherent jurisdiction, including importantly the “collection order” in this case, which included this provision

“If the Defendants^[1] or any other person served with this order is not in a position to deliver the child into the charge of the Tipstaff, he or she^[2] must each:-

(a) inform the Tipstaff of the whereabouts of the child, if such are known to him or her; and

(b) also in any event inform the Tipstaff of all matters within his or her knowledge or understanding which might reasonably assist him in locating the child.”

The Uncle, Mr Oddin, was brought to Court AS A WITNESS in July 2015

On 30 June 2015, Keehan J discharged both the care order and the freeing order. L remained a ward of court. On 30 July 2015 Keehan J made an order which, so far as material for present purposes, was in the following terms:

“UPON the court being satisfied that the attendance of Mr Gous Oddin to attend court for the purpose of examining the whereabouts of the parents [that is, L’s parents] and the welfare and whereabouts of the child [that is, L] is necessary

… IT IS ORDERED THAT

1 Leave is granted to the local authority for a witness summons to be issued, whereby Mr Gous Oddin shall attend court at 9.30am on 8 October 2015 before Mr Justice Keehan sitting at … for the purposes of being examined as to the whereabouts of the parents and the welfare and whereabouts of the child, L …

2 Mr Gous Oddin … shall attend the hearing on 8 October 2015 for the purpose of examination as to the whereabouts of the parents and whereabouts of the child L …”

Mr Oddin gave evidence before the Court on 8th October 2015 – remember that he was there as a witness, and that he was NOT at that point subject to an application for committal. However, the Court was not satisfied that he was giving honest answers.

On 8 October 2015 Mr Oddin attended before Keehan J as directed. We have the Transcript of the proceedings. The local authority was represented by Mr Stefano Nuvoloni and L by Miss Roberta McDonald. Unsurprisingly, since he was there as a mere witness, Mr Oddin was not represented. The judge asked Mr Oddin to “come forward to the witness box.” Mr Oddin affirmed, gave his name and address and explained, in answer to questions from the judge, that he was L’s paternal uncle. Keehan J then said this:

“Now, Mr U, I want you to understand something very clearly. You are here today to give me all the information you know about the current whereabouts of L. If I come to the view that you have not told me the truth or you have not told me everything you know about the current circumstances and whereabouts of L, you will be liable to be found in contempt of court. If I find you to be in contempt of court, you then fall to be punished for the contempt. That punishment can consist of a fine or it can result in your committal to prison. Do you understand?

A. Yeah.

You are today in a very, very serious position. I should tell you now that, subject to anything that is said by Mr Nuvoloni or by Miss McDonald, what I propose to do is to take evidence from you today. If I am not satisfied with your answers, I will adjourn the matter for a period of time to hold a committal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. If that comes to pass, I would very strongly advise you to seek legal representation for that hearing. Do you understand?

A. Yeah.”

Mr Oddin was then questioned, at the judge’s invitation, first by Mr Nuvoloni and then by Miss McDonald. From time to time the judge asked Mr Oddin questions. Mr Nuvoloni asked a few more questions, concluding “My Lord, I do not think I can take it further.” The Transcript continues:

“THE JUDGE: (Long pause) Mr U, I am very sorry to tell you that I do not believe you have been telling me the truth. I do not believe that you have given me all the information that you can. This is what I propose to do. I am going to list this matter at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Wednesday, 28th October. It will be listed for half a day. It will be listed as a committal hearing, when I will consider whether you are in contempt of court, and if you are in contempt of court, I will then proceed to decide what punishment you should face for that. Do you understand?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.”

The case was duly listed for a committal application, and Mr Oddin was represented. Keehan J gave him a six month prison sentence. It is worthy of note that Mr Oddin’s passport was taken from him in 2004 and he had not been able to travel abroad since that time.

Counsel for Mr Oddin at the committal hearing attempted to establish whether Mr Oddin was charged with contempt for BREACHING the collection order of 2004, or whether he was charged with contempt in the face of the Court for not answering Keehan J’s questions.

We have the Transcript of the hearing on 18 January 2016. Before the evidence was called, Miss Norman sought clarification from Keehan J as to “what the contempt is that my client faces.” She made the point that the collection order required the provision of information that might reasonably assist the Tipstaff in locating the child, whereas the judge’s observations at the end of the hearing on 8 October 2015 had been in very much wider terms, referring to the whereabouts of the parents and the welfare and whereabouts of the child. She continued, “what I am not clear about is, is the contempt as your Lordship might see it not answering your Lordship’s questions, or is the contempt going back to the 2004 order?” The judge replied, “It is going back to the 2004 order.” Miss Norman took the point no further (nor, for that matter, did anyone else) and the judge proceeded to hear the only witness called in support of the allegation of contempt, L’s guardian.

In the course of her closing submissions Miss Norman returned to her opening point:

“MISS NORMAN: My Lord, I expressly asked the question were we dealing with the 2004 order or were we dealing with contempt in the face of the court, and I understood your Lordship to say we were dealing with the 2004 order.

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN: The two are related, though, because if I find that I do not accept the evidence that Mr Oddin gave me on 8^th October, or if I do not accept the evidence he has given me today and I find that he is lying to the court, I am then entitled, or may well then be entitled on that basis to be satisfied that he is not telling the truth, that he knows more than he is telling and is therefore in breach of the 2004 order.

MISS NORMAN: My difficulty is this, as I have suggested to your Lordship earlier on, that your Lordship found him to be at fault in a much wider area than the 2004 order. The 2004 order was matters which might reasonably assist in locating the child and that was it, nothing about welfare or parents or anything else. And so if we focus on that issue …”

After Miss Norman had concluded her submissions there was a short adjournment, after which Keehan J returned to court and gave judgment.

In paragraph 3 of his judgment the judge framed the issue in these terms:

“This matter is listed today before me for committal proceedings against one of the father’s brothers, Mr Gous Oddin. The issue is, do I find that he is in breach of the order made consequent upon that abduction on 30 December 2004.”

He then quoted paragraph 3 of the collection order. In paragraph 5 of his judgment, he said this:

“The question was raised by Ms Norman, on behalf of Mr Oddin, at the start of this hearing as to precisely on what grounds Mr Oddin was being considered for committal and contempt proceedings. I made plain that that related solely to the order of 30 December 2004. But very plainly when considering whether there has been a breach of that order, I am entitled and I must consider the totality of the evidence before me and, in particular, whether I find that Mr Oddin is telling the truth or not. If I find that he is not telling the truth, I then have to consider the reason or possible reasons for him lying to the Court.”

The Court of Appeal make it very plain that a person faced with an application to commit him for contempt has a right to silence – such right extending further than just an ability to refuse to answer individual questions but an ability to refuse to go into the witness box at all.

The absolute right of a person accused of contempt to remain silent, which carries with it the absolute right not to go into the witness box, was established in Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67, where this court held that such a person is not a compellable witness. This right is to be distinguished both from the privilege against self-incrimination and from legal professional privilege, each of which may entitle a witness in certain circumstances to decline to answer a particular question but neither of which entitles the witness to refuse to go into thewitness box or refuse to take the oath (or affirm): see Re X (Disclosure for Purposes of Criminal Proceedings) [2008] EWHC 242 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 944, para 9.

As both Re G and Hammerton v Hammerton illustrate, the principle in Comet has repeatedly been emphasised in this court; see also Re K (Return Order: Failure to Comply: Committal: Appeal) [2014] EWCA Civ 905, [2015] 1 FLR 927, para 61, to which we were referred. Most recently, so far as I am aware, the relevant principles were summarised by Jackson LJ, with whom both Lewison LJ and Treacy LJ agreed, in Inplayer Ltd and ors v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511, paras 40-45:

“40 A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent: see Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67. It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused person is made aware of that right and also of the risk that adverse inferences may be drawn from his silence.

41 If the committal application is heard at the same time as other issues about which the alleged contemnor needs to give evidence, he is placed in the position where he is effectively deprived of the right of silence. That is a serious procedural error: see Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248. This is precisely what happened in the present case. Furthermore no-one told Mr Thorogood that an alleged contemnor has the right not to give evidence.

42 If the contempt application had been the subject of a separate hearing and Mr Thorogood had been informed of his right not to give evidence, he might have exercised that right. He could then have dealt with the contempt allegations by way of submissions. In that regard it should be noted that the judge based her two findings of contempt upon answers which Mr Thorogood had given under skilful cross-examination.

43 Mr Milford points out that Mr Thorogood was reminded of his right not to incriminate himself. That is true, but it is not sufficient. Mr Thorogood should have been told that he was not obliged to give evidence. Furthermore the litigation should not have been managed in a way that forced Mr Thorogood into the witness box.

44 Mr Milford submits that even if there had been a separate hearing of the contempt application, the result would have been the same. If Mr Thorogood gave evidence, he would have been caught out in cross-examination. If he had declined to give evidence, the court would have drawn adverse inferences.

45 What Mr Milford says may well be true. Indeed, as things have turned out, Mr Thorogood may be a very lucky man. Nevertheless there can be no question of upholding findings of contempt against a person who has been deprived of valuable safeguards in the circumstances of this case.”

What we have here is a man who was compelled to Court to give evidence, and made to then answer questions – such answers as he gave then became evidence against him in the committal proceedings – although if he had been served with an application for committal, he never would have had to go into the witness box at all. That doesn’t seem very satisfactory – if the committal was for breach of the 2004 order, then it must have been a live possibility when he started to give his evidence in the October 2015 hearing. He was not legally represented, as a witness, and he was not advised by the Court that he had a right to silence.

In fact, looking again at Keehan J’s words in October 2015, committal was obviously a possible outcome of his evidence, yet he was being urged to give evidence and provide answers

“Now, Mr U, I want you to understand something very clearly. You are here today to give me all the information you know about the current whereabouts of L. If I come to the view that you have not told me the truth or you have not told me everything you know about the current circumstances and whereabouts of L, you will be liable to be found in contempt of court. If I find you to be in contempt of court, you then fall to be punished for the contempt. That punishment can consist of a fine or it can result in your committal to prison. Do you understand?

The problem here arises because Keehan J was making use of the evidence given by Mr Oddin in that October hearing at the committal hearing in January 2016. He was deprived of the safeguards (legal representation, being made aware of his right to silence) and was a committal hearing where a defendant had been deprived of such safeguards legitimate?

In my judgment, no criticism can be made of what happened on 8 October 2015; the problem arises because of the use that was made on 18 January 2016 of the evidence given by Mr Oddin on the earlier occasion.

It is quite clear that on 8 October 2015 Keehan J was exercising, and exercising only, the jurisdiction which I have described in paragraph 9 above. By then, Mr Oddin was no longer a party to the proceedings. He attended court as a witness in answer to the witness summons which Keehan J had directed on 30 July 2015. Mr Oddin was a compellable witness. He was compelled to give evidence. Despite being a compellable witness he would have been entitled to plead the privilege against self-incrimination as a reason for declining to answer a particular question. He was not advised of that right, though in the event nothing, in my judgment, turns on this fact.

Keehan J was appropriately robust in spelling out the implications for Mr Oddin if he did not tell the truth: namely that if he did not tell the truth he stood in peril of committal proceedings for contempt. Keehan J said nothing at that point about the collection order; the species of contempt he had in mind was plainly contempt in the face of the court, not contempt arising from breach of the collection order. The warning, though robust, was entirely proper, indeed only fair, so that Mr Oddin be left in no doubt as to the seriousness of the proceedings before the judge. It is precisely the kind of warning that I have myself given on many similar occasions. As McFarlane LJ said in Re K (Return Order: Failure to Comply: Committal: Appeal) [2014] EWCA Civ 905, [2015] 1 FLR 927, para 77:

“The situation that faced Russell J in the various hearings leading up to the final committal hearing not infrequently arises in the context of international children cases before a High Court judge. A judge may be required to deploy the court’s considerable powers to compel parties or others to attend court or to bring about the return of the child to this jurisdiction. At a hearing in which pressure is brought to bear on an individual, and injunctive orders are made, the judge may be justified in presenting a very robust demeanour and, in so doing, making reference to the potential consequences if court orders are disobeyed. In the present case, the judge did just that, and no criticism has been sustained in relation to her actions.”

However, as he went on (para 78):

“The difficulty that can arise … occurs if and when the court is later required to hear committal proceedings arising out of an alleged breach of an earlier order … The more robust the judge has been in delivering a coercive message at the earlier hearings, and the more the judge has emphasised the consequences of breach, the more inappropriate (or impossible) it will be for the same judge to conduct the committal process.”

A comparison of the language used in the order which he had made on 30 July 2015 with the language used in the orders Keehan J subsequently made on 8 October 2015, 28 October 2015 and 9 November 2015, shows clearly, in my judgment, that the contempt in relation to which Mr Oddin was required to attend before Keehan J on 18 January 2016 was in respect of his untruthful evidence to Keehan J and not in relation to the collection order. It is the point which Miss Norman correctly identified on 18 January 2016. Each of the three later orders identified the contempt as being “not providing the court with” all the information Mr Oddin had “as to the whereabouts of the parents and the welfare and whereabouts of the child” (emphasis added). The inconclusive discussion between Miss Norman and the judge on 30 November 2015 did not, seemingly, change matters, though, as her question to Keehan J on 18 January 2016 indicated, it left Miss Norman somewhat unsure as to what exactly the contempt was which the judge was intending to consider at that hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing on 18 January 2016, as we have seen (paragraph 34 above), Keehan J made clear that the contempt he thought he was considering was not contempt in the face of the court on 8 October 2015 but rather contempt for breach of the collection order. It was at this point, in my judgment, that the proceedings took a fatal turn.

It rather seems that Miss Norman’s main concern may have been as to the ambit of the factual inquiry before the judge at the hearing on 18 January 2016. Be that as it may, the salient, and very regrettable, fact is that no-one – no-one – thought through the implications of the answer Keehan J had given Miss Norman; no-one thought through the implications of the fact that the judge was about to embark upon the hearing of committal proceedings, based on an alleged breach of the collection order, in the course of which much weight was obviously going to be attached to the evidence Mr Oddin had given under compulsion on 8 October 2015. And, even after all the evidence had been given and Miss Norman was making her closing submissions (paragraph 38 above), no-one thought through the implications of what had happened or of the fact that, as the judge put it, the collection order and the evidence he had heard on 8 October 2015 were “related” in the way he described.

The confusion is revealingly illustrated by what the judge said in paragraph 6 of his judgment, where he referred to “the start of these committal proceedings … on 8 October 2015.” The committal proceedings had not started on 8 October 2015; and if they had, there would have been the plainest possible breach of the Comet principle on that occasion.

The consequence of what I have just described was a serious, and in my judgment irremediable, procedural error. Because of the use that was made against him during the hearing on 18 January 2016 of the evidence which had been extracted from him under compulsion on 8 October 2015, Mr Oddin was denied the safeguards which anyone facing proceedings for committal is entitled to: in particular, and fatally, the right to remain silent, the right to refuse to go into the witness box. The court had forced him into the witness box on 8 October 2015 and then used his evidence against him, not in committal proceedings for perjury committed on that occasion (which would have been entirely permissible) but in support of committal proceedings in relation to a previous order. In my judgment, this amounted to a clear, serious and irremediable breach of the Comet principle, necessitating, for the reasons given in Hammerton v Hammerton and Inplayer, that the appeal be allowed. As Jackson LJ said in the passage from Inplayer which I have already quoted, “there can be no question of upholding findings of contempt against a person who has been deprived of valuable safeguards in [such] circumstances.” I add, lest it be thought I have overlooked the point, that there is, in my judgment, nothing in the decision of this court in Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others (No 2) [2006] EWCA Civ 1745, [2007] 1 WLR 2967, which can be relied upon to save what happened here.

On this ground alone, the appeal must, in my judgment, be allowed.

The issue that Holman J raised in Re DAD 2015 – that the standard orders have been wrongly drafted in a way that puts the warning about consequences of breach on page 5, when for committal the consequence MUST BE CLEAR on the FACE OF THE ORDER is raised again

There is a further problem with the collection order. FPR 37.9(1) requires that, if an order is to be enforced by committal, it must contain a penal notice in appropriate form “prominently displayed, on the front of the copy of the … order”. In this case, the penal notice was on the fifth page. I can do no better than to repeat and endorse what Holman J said of a similarly defective collection order in Re DAD [2015] EWHC 2655 (Fam), para 12:
1. “the use of those words in that paragraph on the fifth page of the order simply does not comply with, or satisfy at all, the requirements of rule 37.9(1). In the first place, the warning cannot be said to be “prominently displayed”. It is merely a part of several pages of somewhat indigestible text. In the second place, it most certainly does not appear, as the rule requires, “on the front of the copy of the … order”. It will be recalled that rule 37.9 is emphatic and prohibitive in its terms. Unless the penal notice is prominently displayed on the front of the copy of the order, “a judgment or order … may not be enforced …” In my view, the words “may not be enforced” where they appear in that rule do not import a discretion in the court. Rather, they are a mandatory direction to the court that it cannot and must not enforce the order by committal.”

The Court was also perturbed about a collection order that was made in 2004 being used to commit a person to prison for breaching it some eleven years later, and at the length of time that Mr Oddin’s passport had been withheld from him.

The collection order

Once we had announced our decision to allow the appeal, the question arose as to what should happen about the collection order which had been made on 30 December 2004. We indicated our view that it should be discharged. No opposition to this course having been voiced either by Mr Bennett or by Mr Maynard, we discharged the collection order and directed the immediate return of the passports.
Three factors, in my judgment, pointed very obviously and, in the event, decisively to that outcome:
i) First, it is wholly wrong in principle that a collection order should be left in place, hanging over peoples’ heads like the sword of Damocles, for anything remotely approaching the eleven years throughout which this collection order has been in force.

ii) Secondly, it is undesirable, to put it no higher, to allow an order to remain in force which is not compliant with FPR 37.9(1).

iii) Finally, and decisively, the perpetuation, beyond a comparatively short period, of the passport order (paragraph 4(b) of the collection order), essentially for purposes of coercion, was wrong in principle and fundamentally objectionable: see In re B (A Child) (Wrongful Removal: Orders against Non-Parties) [2014] EWCA Civ 843, [2015] Fam 209, [2015] 1 FLR 871, paras 24-33. This should never have been allowed to happen. Mr Oddin’s protests as set out in his three witness statements (paragraphs 22, 24 and 27 above) were well-founded. It is very much to be regretted that Mr Oddin and other members of his family should have been deprived of their passports for so long and without any proper justification. They have been badly ill-used by the court.

This appeal, even more than the decision of Holman J in Re DAD, has focused attention on a number of disquieting problems arising in relation to collection orders made prior to the new form of order which was introduced in July 2013. It is idle to imagine that the collection order we have been considering in this case is unique. On the contrary, there is every reason to fear that there are significant numbers of elderly collection orders still in force and which, it might be thought, ought, for the reasons set out in paragraph 65 above, to be discharged. I propose, therefore, to identify, with the assistance of the Tipstaff, just how many such orders there are, with a view to taking appropriate steps to investigate whether those orders should or should not be allowed to remain in force.

The Court of Appeal also touched upon the delicate issue of whether a Judge who is considering committal of a person ought to be a different Judge to the one who conducted the hearing in which the contempt is said to have arisen. They are cautious about that – but I read this as being a cautious suggestion that it is probably safer to have it heard by a different Judge

As McFarlane LJ said in Re K (Return Order: Failure to Comply: Committal: Appeal) [2014] EWCA Civ 905, [2015] 1 FLR 927, para 77:

“The situation that faced Russell J in the various hearings leading up to the final committal hearing not infrequently arises in the context of international children cases before a High Court judge. A judge may be required to deploy the court’s considerable powers to compel parties or others to attend court or to bring about the return of the child to this jurisdiction. At a hearing in which pressure is brought to bear on an individual, and injunctive orders are made, the judge may be justified in presenting a very robust demeanour and, in so doing, making reference to the potential consequences if court orders are disobeyed. In the present case, the judge did just that, and no criticism has been sustained in relation to her actions.”

However, as he went on (para 78):

“The difficulty that can arise … occurs if and when the court is later required to hear committal proceedings arising out of an alleged breach of an earlier order … The more robust the judge has been in delivering a coercive message at the earlier hearings, and the more the judge has emphasised the consequences of breach, the more inappropriate (or impossible) it will be for the same judge to conduct the committal process.”

I referred in paragraph 50 above, to what McFarlane LJ had said in Re K about the circumstances in which a judge who had conducted the kind of hearing which took place in the present case before Keehan J on 8 October 2015 ought not to conduct subsequent committal proceedings. That issue, which was at the heart of the appeal in Re K, is not one which, in the event, arose for determination here, so I say no more about it. The point to which I draw attention, is simply this. Quite apart from the Comet principle, which, as we have seen, would prevent the use in subsequent committal proceedings of the evidence given by someone in Mr Oddin’s position at a hearing such as that which took place on 8 October 2015, it is possible that the rule in[2008] 2 FLR Hollington v F Hewthorn and Company Limited and another [1943] KB 587^[15] might in certain circumstances prevent the use in subsequent proceedings of any findings made by the judge at the first hearing. That is a complicated matter which may require careful examination on some future occasion; so, beyond identifying the point, I say no more about it.

Theis J’s judgment draws together some very important practice issues, and is worth reading in full, so I set it out here.

The powers of the court to make, and enforce, orders to secure the return of children who have been wrongfully removed from those who care for them is an essential part of the family court’s powers to protect vulnerable children from harm.

Before any court embarks on hearing a committal application, whether for a contempt in the face of the court or for breach of an order, it should ensure that the following matters are at the forefront of its mind:

(1) There is complete clarity at the start of the proceedings as to precisely what the foundation of the alleged contempt is: contempt in the face of the court, or breach of an order.

(2) Prior to the hearing the alleged contempt should be set out clearly in a document or application that complies with FPR rule 37 and which the person accused of contempt has been served with.

(3) If the alleged contempt is founded on breach of a previous court order, the person accused had been served with that order, and that it contained a penal notice in the required form and place in the order.

(4) Whether the person accused of contempt has been given the opportunity to secure legal representation, as they are entitled to.

(5) Whether the judge hearing the committal application should do so, or whether it should be heard by another judge.

(6) Whether the person accused of contempt has been advised of the right to remain silent.

(7) If the person accused of contempt chooses to give evidence, whether they have been warned about self-incrimination.

(8) The need to ensure that in order to find the breach proved the evidence must meet the criminal standard of proof, of being sure that the breach is established.

(9) Any committal order made needs to set out what the findings are that establish the contempt of court, which are the foundation of the court’s decision regarding any committal order.

Counsel and solicitors are reminded of their duty to assist the court. This is particularly important when considering procedural matters where a person’s liberty is at stake.

11 Comments

Posted in case law, committal and tagged 2014 ewca civ 905, 2015 EWHC 2655, breach, collection order, committal, consequences must be on the face of the order, contempt of court, Court of Appeal, ewca civ 173, judicial guidance on committal, procedure for committal application, procedure for committal hearing, re dad 2015, re k return order failure to comply committal appeal 2014, re l a child 2016, right to silence, right to silence in committal application, should a Judge who heard the contempt also hear the committal?, theis j. Bookmark the permalink.

Disguised compliance

Posted on March 22, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This is a case where a Judge was critical of the Local Authority’s use of the phrase “disguised compliance”. I know that it is a phrase that sometimes puts hackles up

Pink Tape sums up very well just how annoying some people find the phrase – though her particular issue is that it should be “disguised non-compliance”

Mini-Vent

(I’m going to suggest in this piece that the problem is not the phrase or the concept, it is throwing the label around when there’s no evidence that it is happening. It is when people just assert that it has happened without going to the bother of proving it with evidence. It is a similar sort of effect when people describe a child’s description of abuse as a “disclosure” rather than an “allegation” – because the former implies that the child must be telling you something true, and the latter is a more accurate description of the account of abuse until such time as a Court makes decisions about whether it happened)

Disguised compliance is a recognised phenomenon in child protection, and one that frequently comes up in Serious Case Reviews , it is generally defined thus:-

Disguised compliance involves parents giving the appearance of co-operating with child welfare agencies to avoid raising suspicions and allay concerns. Published case reviews highlight that professionals sometimes delay or avoid interventions due to parental disguised compliance.

Click to access factsheet-disguised-compliance1.pdf

So it can be a real thing, and it can be a real problem that professionals need to be aware of. Professionals failing to spot the difference between a parent who has genuinely changed and is trying their best and one who is trying it on, have ended up with children who were seriously harmed or worse. It was, for example, a major feature in the Victoria Climbie Serious Case Review, also in the Peter Connolly one.

A sceptical enquiring mind is appropriate – the mind should be open to both possibilities and assess the evidence.

The difficulty, of course, is the differential diagnosis – a situation could be disguised compliance, or it could be a parent genuinely doing everything that they are being asked to do.

If for example, a Local Authority say to a mother, we want you to separate from father and not have contact with him, and allow us to make unannounced visits and improve the home conditions, there are instances where this is exactly what the mother does and that’s positive evidence of change and a good indicator for the future. However, there are cases where the parents pretend to have separated and see each other secretly and everything on the surface looks the same as the mother who has really made those changes. The latter would be disguised compliance. Someone pretending to have changed, but not having really done it.

The issue, of course, is that simply looking at a parent and labelling what they are doing as “disguised compliance” is an allegation – that the parent is not really changed and is not trustworthy. And if you are as the State making an allegation, then the burden is on you to prove it, and you have to provide evidence to that effect. Simply labelling someone’s behaviour as “disguised compliance” is not sufficient.

If a parent is doing everything that you have asked them to do, then you can’t simply undermine that by saying “Ah, but it is just disguised compliance” – that’s like having your cake and eating it. The LA seem to be in a position of being able to criticise someone for not doing what they were asked to, but also being able to criticise them for doing it. Obviously, if there’s evidence that someone’s attitude and insight has not changed, or that they are not actually doing what they claim to be, that’s a different matter – depending on the evidence.

It may well be very sensible to have in mind that a given set of facts could be genuine change or it could be disguised compliance, and to assess the situation and check how you are monitoring, but if you can’t provide the evidence that what the mother is doing is disguised compliance, you cannot just write all of the observed changes off by saying that’s what it is. The law, and the Courts, work on evidence, not mere suspicion or speculation.

DV (Adoption or Rehabilitation) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B12.html

The Local Authority repeatedly use a phrase critical of the mother when they say that she has engaged in ‘disguised compliance’. It may be that their terminology is loose, but I find that it is not supported by any recent evidence. Indeed, the social worker is happy to praise the mother’s engagement and was positively enthusiastic about the counselling which was underway. Certainly, the children’s guardian was rejecting of the criticism implicit in the phrase ‘disguised compliance’. The guardian told me that the mother now recognised the need for change, she wanted to change, she had fully engaged with everything that had been offered, and she was in the process of change.

The Judge, having heard all of the evidence in the case was satisfied that the mother genuinely had separated from the father, and had learned from her mistakes and was working genuinely to make and sustain changes, and therefore refused the plan for adoption – the child was returned to the mother’s care.

23 Comments

Posted in adoption, assessment of risk, case law and tagged adoption, disguised compliance, DV (adoption or rehabilitation) 2016, his honour judge duggan. Bookmark the permalink.

High Court gets into the groove

Posted on March 21, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

They had style, they had grace

Lots of lawyers in this case

Setright, Verdan, Renton too

Adam Wolanski, we love you

Ladies with an attitude

Fellows that were in the mood

Don’t just stand there, let’s get to it

Write a skeleton, there’s nothing to it

Hague

The laboured opening may tell you that this piece is about the High Court case in Ciccone v Ritchie (No 2) 2016 involving the singer Madonna, and the film-maker Guy Ritchie, and their son. [And no, it is not a request for a section 37 report arising from the Judge having had to view the film Castaway that they made together, though that did cause Significant Harm to anyone who saw it]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/616.html

I’m going to start with how the Judge ended, because I think it is powerful and moving stuff, with much wider application than just these two celebrities.

Finally, I would say this. For all the interesting legal argument and great learning that is apparent from the admirable skeleton arguments and submissions of leading and junior counsel, at the root of these proceedings (and, I venture to add, the proceedings in the United States) is a temporary breakdown in trust. For all the media coverage, comment and analysis, this is a case born out of circumstances that arise for countless separated parents the world over.
The court should always be the option of very last resort when parents cannot agree matters in respect of their children. Whilst the law provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between parents in respect of their children it is but a blunt instrument when compared to the nuanced virtues of calm discussion and considered compromise between those involved, accepting that this latter path can be a hard one on which to embark, and to sustain, in the context of relationship breakdown. It is for this reason that during the course of the proceedings on each side of the Atlantic Judge Kaplan and myself have repeatedly urged the parties to adopt a consensual approach to resolving the matters of dispute between them for the benefit of Rocco.
Within this context I renew, one final time, my plea for the parents to seek, and to find an amicable resolution to the dispute between them. Because agreement is not possible today does not mean that agreement will not be possible tomorrow. Most importantly, as I observed during the course of the hearing, summer does not last forever. The boy very quickly becomes the man. It would be a very great tragedy for Rocco if any more of the precious and fast receding days of his childhood were to be taken up by this dispute. Far better for each of his parents to spend that time enjoying, in turn, the company of the mature, articulate and reflective young man who is their son and who is a very great credit to them both.

In terms of points of law, there are some worthwhile passages about transparency – this Court case has attracted a lot of media attention in America, because there are ongoing proceedings in New York (where it seems the Press were allowed to come into the hearings, report what was said and even print a still photograph) – should this judgment be published at all, should there be anonymisation – how exactly CAN you anonymise a case where there is already so much within the public domain, and where anyone with half a brain can identify who the parties are, even if you gave them just “M” and “F” initials?

I do like that the key American decision on transparency in these circumstances is actually called Anonymous v Anonymous

Publication of Judgment

I set out the principles applicable when deciding whether or not to publish a judgment pursuant to the President’s Guidance in my judgment in H v A (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2630 (Fam) and I shall not repeat them in detail here. In summary:

i) The public generally have a legitimate, indeed a compelling, interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their jurisdiction.

ii) Paragraph 19 of the Practice Guidance makes clear that in considering whether to publish a judgment the judge shall have regard to all the circumstances, the rights arising under any relevant provision of the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8 (respect for private and family life) and Art 10 (freedom of expression), and the effect of publication upon any current or potential criminal proceedings.

iii) The exercise of discretion concerning the publication of the judgment will be a simple case management decision to be taken at the conclusion of the judgment and following a broad consideration of the applicable principles with basic reasons;

iv) When conducting a balancing exercise between Art 8 and Art 10, the court applies the four propositions identified by Lord Steyn in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593 at [17]. In applying what Lord Steyn described as the “ultimate balancing test” of proportionality it is important that the court consider carefully whether the order that is being sought is proportionate having regard to the end that the order seeks to achieve;

v) Within the balancing exercise, the child’s best interests are not paramount but rather are a primary consideration. Those best interests must accordingly be considered first, although they can be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations;

vi) In undertaking the requisite balancing exercises, the impact of publication on the children must be weighed by the court. Whilst in many cases it will be demonstrated that publicity will have an adverse impact on the child, this will not be the position inevitably. In particular, in each case the impact on the child of publication must be assessed by reference to the evidence before the court rather than by reference to a presumption that publicity will be inevitably harmful to the child.

vii) When the court is considering whether to depart from the principle of open justice it will require clear and cogent evidence on which to base its decision. Some of the evidence on which the requisite balancing exercise is undertaken will necessarily involve a degree of speculation although there comes a point where evidence is not merely speculative but pure speculation.

With respect to the latter point, and noting the difference in emphasis between the two jurisdictions, in reaching her decision that there were no compelling reasons to close the proceedings in New York Judge Kaplan cited the following passage from the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department in Anonymous v Anonymous 158 A.D.2d 296 (1990) as follows:
1. “The unsupported speculation by her counsel as to the deleterious effect the media coverage might have on the child is simply inadequate to overcome the strong presumption that court proceedings be open to the public.”

Publication of Judgments

Balancing the competing Art 8 and Art 10 rights, I am satisfied that my judgment of 3 February 2016 following the hearing on 21 December 2015 and this judgment should be published. I am further satisfied that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and subject to some limited redaction, the judgments should be published without anonymisation. The reporting restrictions in this case will continue to be governed by the order that I have already made and will apply to the reporting of my published judgments. My reasons for so deciding are as follows.
The starting point in this case must be that it will simply not be possible for the court to produce an anonymised version of the judgments such as to eradicate the risk of jigsaw identification. Given the high level of publicity the world over in respect of this case, to produce a judgment that gives rise to no risk of jigsaw identification would result in a judgment that could not even indicate the dates on which the proceedings were heard. Within this context, and in the very particular circumstances of this case, I accept Mr. Wolanksi’s submission that in light of the level of information already in the public domain concerning this case, it is unrealistic to think that the judgments given by this court could be anonymised to the extent required to ensure the parties were not identified whilst at the same time remaining a means by which what the court has done in this case can be understood by the public at large.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the choice for the court is to publish the judgments without anonymisation or not to publish them at all.

The key legal issue was whether a party who makes an application under the 1980 Hague Convention then needs leave of the Court to withdraw it.

The Court ruled that there does need to be an application to withdraw and for the Court to grant leave.

The Law

Permission to Withdraw

FPR 2010 r 29.4 provides as follows in respect of permission to withdraw an application:
1. 29.4 Withdrawal of applications in proceedings

(1) This rule applies to applications in proceedings –

(a) under Part 7;

(b) under Parts 10 to 14 or under any other Part where the application relates to the welfare or upbringing of a child or;

(c) where either of the parties is a protected party.

(2) Where this rule applies, an application may only be withdrawn with the permission of the court.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), a person seeking permission to withdraw an application must file a written request for permission setting out the reasons for the request.

(4) The request under paragraph (3) may be made orally to the court if the parties are present.

(5) A court officer will notify the other parties of a written request.

(6) The court may deal with a written request under paragraph (3) without a hearing if the other parties, and any other persons directed by the court, have had an opportunity to make written representations to the court about the request.

The question to which this case gives rise is whether FPR 2010 r 29.4 applies to applications in proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention and, if so, what the test is for giving permission to withdraw in such cases.
As set out above, there is no authority precisely on this point. In respect of proceedings under the 1980 Convention some authorities appear to have proceeded on the basis that permission to withdraw is not required (see AA v TT (Recognition and Enforcement) [2015] 2 FLR 1) and some on the basis that it is required (see Re G (Abduction: Withdrawal of Proceedings, Acquiescence and Habitual Residence) [2008] 2 FLR 351 at [16] setting out the terms of an order made earlier in those proceedings and the recent decision of the President in Re D (Children)(Child Abduction Practice) [2016] EWHC 504 (Fam)). In none of those cases however, was the court requested to consider whether the permission of the court to withdraw was mandated by r 29.4 in this context.
Anecdotally, my (admittedly limited) experience suggests that many practitioners do consider that the permission of the court is required to withdraw applications in proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention and I have certainly endorsed a number of orders which provide for such permission in cases where an applicant has decided, for whatever reason, not to proceed.
The remaining authorities on permission to withdraw concentrate exclusively on public law proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (see Re N (Leave to Withdraw Proceedings) [2000] 1 FLR 134, WSCC v M, F, W, X, Y and Z [2011] 1 FLR 188 and Redbridge LBC v B and C and A (Through his Children’s Guardian) [2011] 2 FLR 117 ). These authorities make clear that in public law children proceedings, where the threshold is capable of being crossed the test for whether permission should be given for care proceedings to be withdrawn is the welfare of the child.
However, care must be taken in relying on these authorities in the context of the question at issue before this court. First, those authorities were decided under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 r 4.5 which, as detailed below, differs substantially from FPR 2010 r 29.4. Second, and importantly, the conclusions in those authorities that the question of whether care proceedings should be withdrawn is a question which concerns the welfare or upbringing of a child, and that the test for whether permission should be given is the welfare of the child, are grounded firmly in the fact that the upbringing of the child is the main question falling for determination in such proceedings (see London Borough of Southwark v B [1993] 2 FLR 559 at 572).
It is important to note that the procedural requirement of permission for the withdrawal of proceedings is not limited to cases involving children, either in FPR 2010 r 29.4 or more widely. FPR 2010 r 29.4(1)(a) applies r 29.4 to applications in proceedings under Part 7 of the FPR 2010, namely applications in matrimonial and civil partnership proceedings, and is not qualified as only applying where the application concerns the welfare or upbringing of a child. Accordingly, pursuant to FPR 2010 r 29.4(1)(a) permission is required to withdraw an application for a marriage or civil partnership order governed by FPR 2010 Part 7 notwithstanding the proceedings do not concern the welfare or upbringing of a child. There are also other areas of law where permission is required to withdraw an application in proceedings. For example, under the Insolvency Act 1986 s 266(2) a bankruptcy petition may not be withdrawn without the leave of the court.
Finally, and within this context, when considering both the scope of the application of FPR 2010 r 29.4 and the test for permission under it, it is very important to read FPR 2010 r 29.4 in its proper context. That context includes the fact that the FPR 2010 represents a new procedural code with “the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with the case justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved” (FPR 2010 r 1.1). The court must give effect to the overriding objective when it exercises any power under the FPR 2010 (FPR 2010 r 1.2(a)) and has a duty to further the overriding objective by actively managing the case (FPR 2010 r 1.4(1)). Pursuant to FPR 2010 r 1.2(b) the court must also seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it interprets any rule.

I have come to the conclusion that FPR 2010 r 29.4 does apply to applications in proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, governed as they are by FPR 2010 Part 12 Chapter 6 and that, accordingly, the permission of the court is required to withdraw such proceedings. My reasons for so deciding are as follows.
In my judgment this is the plain meaning of FPR 29.4(1)(b). FPR 2010 r 29.4(1)(b) provides that r 29.4 applies to applications in proceedings “under Parts 10 to 14 or under any other Part where the application relates to the welfare or upbringing of a child“. I am satisfied that r 29.4(1)(b) is to be read disjunctively and that the words “where the application relates to the welfare or upbringing of a child” are intended to qualify only the words “any other Part” and not the words “under Parts 10 to 14“. I am reinforced in this view by the fact that Part 10 to Part 14 of the FPR 2010 deal with a wide range of applications that do not, or need not concern the welfare or upbringing of a child.
Whilst it might be argued that the use of the phrase “any other” in r 29.4(1)(b) demonstrates that Parts 10 to 14 are included in r 29.4 only in so far as they apply to applications concerning the welfare or upbringing of children, if this had been the intention I am satisfied that those who drafted the rules would have said so expressly, rather than leaving it to be implied in circumstances where, as I have said, those Parts also deal with applications that need not, and often will not, concern the welfare and upbringing of children. Further, pursuant to FPR 2010 r 1.2(b) when interpreting r 29.4 I must seek to give effect to the overriding objective in FPR 2010 r 1.1. In my judgment reading r 29.4 in this context further militates against this latter interpretation.
FPR 2010 r 29.4 represents a broadening of the type of applications in respect of which permission is required to withdraw when compared with the Family Proceedings Rules 1991. The previous rules, in the form of Part IV of the FPR 1991, made provision for permission to withdraw proceedings only in relation to proceedings under the Children Act 1989 (FPR 1991 r 4.5). For example, although FPR 1991 r 2.8 permitted the discontinuance of a petition for divorce, judicial separation or nullity before service of that petition, the rules made no provision for the proceedings to be withdrawn following service. By contrast, whilst pursuant to FPR 2010 r 7.9 an application for a matrimonial or civil partnership order may be withdrawn at any time before it has been served by giving notice to the court in writing (reflecting the provisions in FPR 1991 r 2.8), pursuant to FPR 2010 r 29.4(1)(a) following service the permission of the court is required before such an application can be withdrawn. Neither FPR 2010 r 29.4(1)(a) or FPR r 29.4(1)(b), which deals with applications in proceedings where either of the parties is a protected party, are not qualified as only applying where the application concerns the welfare or upbringing of a child.
Within the foregoing context, in my judgment interpreting r 29.4 as including within its scope all of the applications governed by Part 10 to Part 14 of the FPR 2010, as opposed simply to those concerned with the welfare or upbringing of a child, is consistent with the overall aim of the FPR 2010 generally and in particular the aim of FPR 2010 Part 1, which requires the court to actively manage the case so as to further the overriding objective of dealing with it justly, having regard to any welfare issues involved.

The Judge recognised and acknowledged that where a party seeks permission to withdraw an application under the Hague Convention, it is next to impossible to conceive of a scenario where the Court would refuse and make them press on.

It would not serve the ends of justice to compel a party to pursue an application under the 1980 Hague Convention that they wish to bring to an end. Indeed, whilst not ruling out such a course of action entirely, it is very difficult indeed to think of a circumstance where the court would compel an applicant in proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention to pursue an application they have indicated they wish to withdraw. Further, having regard to the overriding objective, there are positive merits in this case to permitting the mother to withdraw her application in this jurisdiction. As I observed during the course of the hearing, at present the existence of parallel proceedings in two jurisdictions, before two judges with two sets of lawyers is introducing unnecessary and unhelpful complexity and hindering attempts at settlement, as well as incurring considerable expense. Accordingly, I give permission for the mother to withdraw her proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention.

Finally, just for style points, I have to give a nod to Mr David Williams QC for this turn of phrase

The mother accepts that the Supreme Court of the State of New York has jurisdiction in this matter. The father made clear during the course of this hearing through Mr. Verdan that he, likewise, accepts that the New York Court has jurisdiction, albeit at the outset of the hearing Mr. Verdan submitted that this court should make certain substantive welfare orders in respect of Rocco. Whilst in his Skeleton Argument Mr. Setright undertook an analysis of the jurisdictional position in this case (including an analysis of habitual residence) and submits that this court should, upon the withdrawal of these proceedings, give certain procedural directions aimed at any future applications made in this jurisdiction, he does not suggest at this time that Rocco disputes the jurisdiction of the court in New York. Within this context, and with respect in particular to orders originally sought by the father, Mr. Williams submitted that it would be wrong for the English court to seek to “park its tanks” (to use his phrase) on the front lawn of the United States by taking any steps beyond those necessary to effect the withdrawal of the proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention.

5 Comments

Posted in case law, international, private law and tagged 1980 Hague Convention, 2016 EWHC 616, anonymisation, Ciccone v Ritchie 2016, Hague Convention 1980, jigsaw identification, MacDonald J, madonna v guy ritchie 2016, need to apply for leave to withdraw an application under Hague Convention, publication of judgment, transparency. Bookmark the permalink.

All along the Watchtower

Posted on March 18, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain & Ors v The Charity Commission [2016] EWCA Civ 154

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/154.html

This is a quirky case, involving an appeal from an application for judicial review. The judicial review arose because the Charities Commission sought to open an investigation into the charity Watch Tower (which is a charity connected with the Jehovah’s Witness faith), because of some criminal convictions of three Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Commission wishes to investigate concerns in respect of Watch Tower regarding safeguarding of vulnerable beneficiaries, in particular children who are subject to or make allegations of sexual abuse by individuals who are connected with Jehovah’s Witness congregations.

On 27 May 2014, the Commission initiated an inquiry under section 46 of the 2011 Act to investigate inter alia (i) Watch Tower’s handling of safeguarding matters, including the creation, development, substance and implementation of its safeguarding policy; and (ii) the administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees and whether or not the trustees have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the inquiry (“the Inquiry Decision”) arose out of three criminal trials against former members of congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in respect of historic sex offences. I should say that none of these was connected with Watch Tower.

I’ll re-emphasise that – none of the former Jehovah’s Witnesses who were convicted of historic sexual offences had any connection with Watch Tower.

The Charities Commission used their powers under the Charities Act 2011 to compel production of documents held or obtainable by the charity.

s52 “(1) The Commission may by order –

(a) require any person to provide the Commission with any information which is in that person’s possession and which –

(i) relates to any charity, and

(ii) is relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Commission or of the official custodian;

(b) require any person who has custody or control of any document which relates to any charity and is relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Commission or of the official custodian—

(i) to provide the Commission with a copy of or extract from the

document…”

What they sought was the following:-

On 20 June 2014, the Commission issued a Production Order under section 52 of the 2011 Act (“the Production Order”) requiring Watch Tower to produce:

“(a) All documents created on or after 1 June 2011 setting out or recording an instance or allegation of, or complaint about, abuse of or by a person who is or has been a member of the charity or a congregation charity.

(b) All documents created on or after 1 June 2011 setting out or recording a request for advice and/or guidance from a congregation charity and/or charity trustee, officer, agent or employee of a congregation charity that relates to an instance or allegation of, or complaint about, abuse of or by a person who is or has been a member of the charity or a congregation charity.

(c) All documents created on or after 1 June 2011 setting out or recording advice and/or guidance provided by and/or on behalf of the charity to a congregation charity, and/or a charity trustee, officer, agent or employee of any congregation charity; and that relates to an instance or allegation of, or complaint about, abuse of or by a person or persons who is or has been a member of the charity or any congregation charity.

(d) All minutes of any meetings of the charity, its staff and/or its members, other than minutes of charity trustees’ meetings, held since 1 June 2011 in which the following matters have been discussed:

i. Policies and practice for safeguarding persons who come into contact with the charity and/or any congregation charity.

ii. Any instance or allegation of, or complaint about, abuse of or by a person or persons who is or has been a member of the charity or any congregation charity;

iii. Policies and practice for the internal disciplinary proceedings of the charity and any congregation charity, including but not limited to disfellowship proceedings.”

Watch Tower in turn sought to challenge the decision to launch an inquiry, and to seek a Production Order in those terms.

In relation to the Inquiry Decision, their case is that the proposed inquiry is unlawful on the grounds that (as summarised in their skeleton argument):

“(1) the Commission is interfering and/or is proposing to interfere with the Appellants’ rights of freedom of religion under Article 9 under the Human Rights Act and freedom of association under Article 11 by commencing an inquiry with a view to changing Jehovah’s Witnesses’ and Appellants’ religious practices, and is acting disproportionately and/or is acting disproportionately by misconstruing or misapplying s16.4 of the Charities Act 2011;

(2) the scope of the inquiry is so vague and undefined that it breaches the Appellants’ Article 9 and/or 11 rights because the restrictions placed on it are not ‘prescribed by law’ and/or in breach of the Commission’s obligation under s16.4 of the 2011 Act to act transparently in performing its functions;

(3) the Commission is acting unlawfully in proposing that the Appellants’ Safeguarding Policy include a condition that any Elder running a Bible class must be cleared through an appropriate checking system similar to the Disclosure and Barring Service which is unlawful and/or impossible for the Appellants to implement;

(4) the Commission has breached the Appellants’ right not to be discriminated against in breach of Article 14 and/or its obligation to act consistently under s16.4 of the Charities Act in performing its functions and/or in breach of the common law principle of consistency;

(5) the Commission has erred in law in its approach to the duties of Trustees by misconstruing or misapplying the duties owed by the Appellants under the Companies Act 2006;

(6) the Commission has breached its duty to act fairly by failing to provide proper details of the allegations it is making and thereby giving the Appellants a fair opportunity to meet the case against it; and

(7) in the circumstances the decision to initiate the inquiry was irrational.”

In relation to the Production Order, their case is that it too is unlawful in that (quoting again from their skeleton argument):

“(1) the scope of the Order is disproportionate;

(2) the information sought requires the Appellants to produce documents containing personal information and sensitive personal information as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998; and unless the data subject consents to his personal data being processed, the conditions in Schs 2 and 3 require the public authority to demonstrate that processing is ‘necessary’ and proportionate: see the Supreme Court in South Lanarkshire Council v Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] 1 WLR 2421….; and

(3) the information sought breaches the procedural guarantees of Article 8 rights because prior to disclosure, the person adversely affected must be given notice and the opportunity to make representations before the order was made: see R(TB) v The Combined Court At Stafford [2007] 1 WLR 1524.”

There are thus some really interesting issues about data protection, freedom of religious expression, article 8 right to private and family life, and balancing those matters against safeguarding and protecting children from abuse within an organised religion. (Note, I am not saying that there is any culture of abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness religion – three convictions of people who happened to be Jehovah’s Witnesses does not make a culture comparable to say the problems that Catholicism has had over recent years and it can easily be argued that there is mere coincidence here, but one can also see why the Charities Commission would want to ensure that there was no such culture or practice in any Charity that it regulates)

Annoyingly, this case doesn’t deal with any of that, because it all turns on a tricky and arcane point of law as to the initial Judge refusing the application for judicial review to challenge those two decisions on the basis that Watch Tower should have gone to the First Tier Tribunal to challenge those issues (you can’t judicially review if there is another mechanism for challenge)

The Court of Appeal held that Dove J, who refused the application for judicial review, was right on the first question – should the challenge to the decision to commence an inquiry have been made to the First Tier Tribunal? Yes.

But was wrong on the second – should the challenge to the Production Order have been made to the First Tier Tribunal? Dove J’s answer, yes, was wrong.

The wording of the Charities Act 2011 at s320 deals specifically with appeals against Production Orders

Section 320 provides:

“(1) Section 319(4)(a) does not apply in relation to an appeal against an order made under section 52 (power to call for documents).

(2) On such an appeal the Tribunal must consider whether the information or documents in question-

(a) relates to a charity;

(b) is relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Commission or the official custodian.

(3) The Tribunal may allow such an appeal only if it is satisfied that the information or document in question does not fall within subsection (2)(a) or (b).”

All that the First Tier Tribunal can do on a challenge to a Production Order is rule as to whether the information or documents sought (a) relate to a charity and (b) are relevant to the functions of the Commission. If they are, the Production Order stands. If not, then it doesn’t.

So the wording of s320 meant that the First Tier Tribunal could not actually take into account Watch Tower’s arguments about Data Protection Act, proportionality, necessity and article 8 rights, and fundamentally whether there was any reasonable justification for asking for such wide-ranging disclosure GIVEN that there was no link between Watch Tower and the three men convicted, save that they shared the same faith .

Thus Dove J was incorrect (though forgiveably so) in ruling that the judicial review of THAT decision should be refused because Watch Tower could go to the First Tier Tribunal instead.

Thus, the appeal was allowed in relation to the refusal of permission to judicially review the decision of the Charities Commission to seek the Production Order, and the High Court will in due course deal with this. The Court of Appeal wisely stay out of the pros and cons of the Production Order, and whether the Charities Commission were “Wednesbury Unreasonable” to have issued it.

[If you are thinking that I chiefly wrote about this because it gave me the chance for a Jimi Hendrix reference, then you know me quite well. I could also, given that Dove J was successfully appealed, gone for Prince and titled it “When Dove J Cries” ]

3 Comments

Posted in case law and tagged 2016 EWCA Civ 154, charities act 2011, charities commission, watch tower bible v charities commission 2016. Bookmark the permalink.

Child in care wanting parents to have no information or involvement

Posted on March 11, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

This issue has to be one of the most Frequently asked questions that I get as a Local Authority lawyer – “Little Frank is in care and he doesn’t want his mum to know X, do I respect Frank’s wishes, or respect the duty in the Act that parents are to be consulted with about major issues?”

[Very often this comes up in relation to contraception, pregnancy etc, but also sometimes just that the young person wants no information about themselves to be communicated by the Local Authority to their parent]

In this case, PD v SD & Another 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/4103.html

Keehan J was faced with a child who had been born a girl, named HD, who had changed her name to PD and wished to change her identity to male. He was 16 years old, and had been adopted at the age of 6. Things had become difficult and unworkable, and PD was in voluntary care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. PD was going on to have assessment and assistance from the Tavistock about his gender identity. He did not want his adoptive parents to be involved or given any information.

It became as stark as this :-

So strongly held are his views that Ms. Morgan QC told me he would even wish his parents not to be notified if he were required to receive emergency medical treatment. The depths of his wishes are conveyed by his view that if he suffered a serious accident and underwent emergency surgery he would not want to wake and find his parents at his bedside.

Meanwhile, his parents were still hopeful of a reconciliation and wanted to be involved in PD’s life in some capacity.

THE LAW
It is agreed by all parties that I have a jurisdiction to grant the declaratory relief sought by P.
By virtue of s.8(3) of the Family Law Reform Act, P, now aged 16, can give valid consent to medical and surgical treatment.
If P was not provided with accommodation by the local authority and was not a looked after child, the local authority would not be obliged to consult with or give information to P’s parents.
Since he is a child looked after by the local authority, it is obliged by s.22 and s.26 of the Children Act 1989 to consult with and give information to the parents. Section 22 provides:

“Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after or proposing to look after the local authority shall, so far as it is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes of-

(a) the child;

(b) his parents;

(c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has had parental responsibility for him; and

(d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant regarding the matter to be decided.”

There are further obligations in a similar vein imposed by the provisions of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010.
The Article 8 Convention rights of P and of his parents are engaged. I take particular account of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Yousef v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210 , that where there is a tension between the Article 8 rights of the child, on the one hand, and the parents, on the other, the rights of the child prevail.
In the case of Re C (Care: Consultation with Parents not in Child’s Best Interests) [2006] 2 FLR 787, Coleridge J decided it was not in the best interests of the subject child for the local authority to consult with or give information to the father. In his judgment he expressed the view that it was only in very exceptional circumstances that such an order would be appropriate. The factual matrix of that case was very different from the circumstances of this case.
In my view, rather than considering whether the facts of the case are very exceptional, although in my judgment the facts of this case are very exceptional; I should instead focus on the competing Article 8 rights of P and of his parents.

There were three major relevant pieces of caselaw – it won’t surprise anyone to know that one was Gillick. The second was Naomi Campbell’s privacy case, setting out that a person’s medical records and medical treatment is private. The third is one precisely on point as to when a young person acquires the right for their medical treatment to be kept confidential from a parent.

In the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112 Lord Scarman said, at 185(e):

“The rights of a parent exist primarily to enable the parent to discharge his duty of maintenance, protection and education until he reaches such an age as to be able to look after himself and make his own decisions.”
Baroness Hale, in the case of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Limited [2004] 2 AC 457 said at p.499:

“It has always been accepted that information about a person’s health and treatment for ill-health is both private and confidential. This stems not only from the confidentiality of the doctor/patient relationship but from the nature of the information itself. As the European Court of Human Rights put it in Z v Finland [1997] 25 EHRR 371:

“Respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal system with all the Contracting State parties to the Convention. It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in health services generally. Without such protection those in need of medical assistance may be deterred from revealing such information of a person and intimidate nature as may be necessary in order to receive appropriate treatment and even from seeking such assistance, thereby endangering their own health and, in the case of transmittable diseases, that of the community.””
I was referred to the case of Regina on the Application of Sue Axon v Secretary of State for Health [2006] EWHC 37 (Admin). During the course of judgment Silber J said, at para.64:

“It is appropriate to bear in mind that the European Court of Human Rights attaches great value to the rights of children. Furthermore, the ratification by the United Kingdom of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in November 1989 was significantly showing a desire to give children greater rights. The ECHR and the UNC show why the duty of confidence owed by a medical professional to a competent young person is a high one and which therefore should not be overridden except for a very powerful reason. In my view, although family factors are significant and cogent, they should not override the duty of confidentiality owed to the child. It must not be forgotten that this duty was described in Z v Finland as a vital principle in the legal system of all Contracting Parties to the Convention.”

Then at para.127 he said:

“I am unable to accept Mr Havers’ contention that by permitting a medical professional to withhold information relating to advice or treatment of a young person on sexual matters, the Article 8 rights of the parents of the young person were thereby infringed. In considering this issue, it must always be remembered first, that in Z v Finland the European Court emphasised the significance and compelling nature of a patient’s Article 8(1) right to confidentiality of health information as explained in paragraph 63 above. A similar approach was adopted in MS v Sweden, in which it is said at page 337 in paragraph 41 “respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal systems of all Contracting Parties to the Convention”. Although these cases deal with the position of an adult there is no good reason why they could not apply to protect the confidentiality of health information concerning a young person, especially because, as I have explained, that a duty of confidentiality is owed to a young person by medical professionals.”

Finally, at para.130 to para.132 he said:

“As a matter of principle it is difficult to see why a parent should still retain an Article 8 right to parental authority relating to a medical decision where the young person concerned understands the advice provided by the medical professionals and its implications. Indeed, any right under Article 8 of a parent to be notified of advice or treatment of a sexual matter as part of the right claimed by Mr. Havers must depend on a number of factors, such as the age and understanding of their offspring. A parent would not be able to claim such an Article 8 right to be notified if their son or daughter was, say, 18 years of age and had sought medical advice on sexual matters, because in that case the young person is able to consent without parental knowledge or consent for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 above. The reason why the parent could not claim such a right is that their right to participate in decision making as part of the right claimed by Mr. Havers would only exist while the child was so immature that his parent had the right of control as was made clear in Gillick. In my view, any Article 8 right of the kind advocated by Mr. Havers must be seen in that light so that once the child is sufficiently mature in this way the parent only retains such rights to family life and to be notified about medical treatment if, but only if, the young person so wishes. Indeed, whether there is family life and hence a right to family life of a particular family is a question of fact. The European Commission on Human Rights has explained the existence of family ties depends upon the real existence and practice of close family ties. It is not clear why the parent should have an Article 8 right to a family life where first the offspring is almost 16 years of age and does not wish it, second where the parent no longer has a right to control the child for the reasons set out in the last paragraph and third where the young person, in Lord Scarman’s words, “has sufficient understanding of what is involved to give a consent valid in law”. There is nothing in the Strasbourg jurisprudence which persuades me that any parental right or power of control under Article 8 is wider than in domestic law. Parental right to family life does not continue after the time when the child is able to make his own decisions. So parents do not have Article 8 rights to be notified of any advice of the medical profession after the young person is able to look after himself or herself and make his or her own decisions.”
I respectfully agree with Silver J’s analysis of the law and of the relevant legal principles.

There were therefore two competing Article 8 rights to balance, and the Court considered that they were to be balanced in favour of the young person, who was 16 and capacitious and understood the issues involved and had made his decision that he did not want his parents to be given that information. [I think there’s an argument that this rather reverses Coleridge J’s decision in Re C – rather than becoming exceptional that a Local Authority respect a child’s wishes not to share information with a parent, it seems to become the norm if the child is capacitious and expressing a view not to share the information – though this was, and is, of course an exceptional case]

DISCUSSION
The situation in which P and the parents find themselves is extremely difficult for each party. The parents struggle to understand P’s position, feelings and his decision about his gender. He struggles to understand their complete lack of support and understanding. The upshot is that he, at 16 years of age, has decided to completely disengage from family life with them.
On the basis of the authorities I have referred to above, that is a decision he is perfectly entitled to reach and is one which this court must respect.
There is no issue that P should be afforded privacy in respect of his medical treatment. In any event, I am entirely satisfied that he is entitled to respect of his privacy on these matters as a matter of law.
I am pleased to learn that the parents, having expressed a willingness to engage with the Tavistock Centre throughout, will continue to seek guidance and support from the same. I am sure that will be extremely helpful for them. It may well help them to come to an understanding of why P finds it so distressing when they have referred to him as H.
Like the parents, I very much hope the time will come when a reconciliation is effected between P and the parents. In my judgment, however, the surest way of seeking to secure that outcome, is to respect P’s current wishes and feelings.
When balancing P’s Article 8 rights against those of the parents I am entirely satisfied the balance falls decisively in favour of P’s Article 8 rights. At the age of 16, having decided to disengage from his family in the very sad circumstances of this case, it is for P to decide what, if and when any details about his life are given to his parents. I have taken particular account of the genuine and sincere conviction with which P has expressed his views and wishes. It would, in my judgment, be wholly contrary to (a) his welfare best interests, (b) his Article 8 rights and (c) any hope of a reconciliation being effected for the court to override his views and permit or require the local authority to provide information about P to his parents.
Accordingly, I propose to grant declaratory relief as sought by P.
I know that this decision will be a source of real disappointment and distress to the parents. I hope, however, they will understand the reasons for my decision in the fullness of time.

[Another way of looking at it, not considered within this judgment, is whether the LA are capable of complying with the section 22 duty to consult with a parent where the young person is Gillick competent and objects, because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act and that the subject has rights about how their information, particularly sensitive personal information such as this is processed]

Very sad case, where you have to feel for everyone involved, and just hope that for all of them what must be extremely difficult and painful now may result in less pain and hardship in the future.

110 Comments

Posted in adoption, case law and tagged 2015 EWHC 4103, child's wishes about sharing information with parents, data protection act, gender identity issues, gillick, gillick competence, keehan j, Local Authority duty to share information with parents, medical information, parents right to information, PD v SD 2015, tavistock. Bookmark the permalink.

Relinquished baby, chapter and some verses

Posted on March 8, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

I just ended up doing this long summary of the various issues that arise and where to find the answers in case law, so I thought it might be helpful for more general use. It is too bony to serve as a skeleton, but it might help people as a starting point, because the answers are fairly scattered across a variety of cases. [If you end up using it and want to give me a name-check, that would be very kind]

Our starting point is that for a genuine relinquished baby, where both parents consent, “nothing else will do” does not apply.

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/03/03/an-answer-on-relinquished-babies-and-re-b-s/

Baker J in Re JL (2016)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/440.html

(2) The decision of the Supreme Court in Re B [2013] UKSC 33 concerned non-consensual adoptions. Where parents have relinquished their baby and expressed a wish that he or she be adopted outside the natural family, the degree of interference with family life rights is less than where the parent-child relationship is severed against the parents’ wishes. The fact that the parents have taken this decision is an important consideration when determining whether the interference is necessary and proportionate. It follows, therefore, that approval of adoption in such cases does not depend on the local authority or court reaching the conclusion that nothing else will do. But the parents’ wishes, although important, are not decisive. They must be evaluated along with all the other factors in the welfare checklist in s.1(4) of the 2002 Act. In all adoption cases – non-consensual and consensual – the local authority is under an obligation to carry out a thorough analysis of the realistic options for the child, as highlighted in Re B-S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146.

What does that thorough analysis of the realistic options for the child mean for extended family? How far does a Local Authority have to dig into family members?

Re C v XYZ Local Authority 2007 Court of Appeal authority

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1206.html

In my judgment, for the reasons given below, when a decision requires to be made about the long-term care of a child, whom a mother wishes to be adopted, there is no duty to make enquiries which it is not in the interests of the child to make, and enquiries are not in the interests of the child simply because they will provide more information about the child’s background: they must genuinely further the prospect of finding a long-term carer for the child without delay. This interpretation does not violate the right to family life. The objective of finding long-term care must be the focus of making any further enquiries and that means the court has to evaluate evidence about those prospects. That did not happen in this case. The judge consequently directed himself according to the wrong principle and his exercise of discretion must be set aside. This court must exercise the discretion afresh.

The LA aren’t OBLIGED to assess and rule out family members, but they should explore them if they represent a genuine prospect of placing the child within the child’s timescales. If a parent is resistant to that, I’d suggest that their views can be respected (it perhaps gets a bit more complicated if say maternal grandmother is a professional foster carer, then one might think that she is a genuine prospect)

And what about a father?

A father with PR, you can’t adopt their child without dispensing with their consent, so you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to serve them. No ifs, no buts.

What if the father doesn’t have PR – and doesn’t know about the child, and mum doesn’t want you to tell him?

X County Council v C 2007 (High Court, Munby J, as he then was)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2007/1771.html

The court has an unfettered discretion, to be exercised having regard to all the circumstances and in a manner compliant with the requirements of the Convention. That said, and where there exists family life within the meaning of article 8 as between the mother and the father, one generally requires “strong countervailing factors” (Re H; Re G (Adoption: Consultation of Unmarried Fathers) [2001] 1 FLR 646 at para [48]), “very compelling reasons indeed” (Re C (Adoption: Disclosure to Father) [2005] EWHC 3385 (Fam), [2006] 2 FLR 589, at para [17]) or “cogent and compelling grounds” (Birmingham City Council v S, R and A [2006] EWHC 3065 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 1223, at para [73]) to justify the exclusion from the adoption process of an unmarried father without parental responsibility. At the end of the day, however, every case is different and has to be decided having regard to its own unique circumstances.

This all assumes, of course, that there is family life. Based on what the mother has told us of her relationship with L’s father, I am sceptical as to whether he can in fact pray in aid article 8 of the Convention. If what she has said is correct, there was almost certainly no family life. But given how little we know, it would not be safe to proceed on that basis. I shall assume, though without deciding, that the father’s rights under article 8 are indeed engaged.

Much more significantly, of course, this all assumes that the father’s identity is known, because otherwise there is a potentially insuperable obstacle to engaging him in the process. Can the mother be compelled to reveal his identity? This is the issue at the heart of the present case.

In Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 at page 366, Holman J speaking of the father said:

“There is no power to compel her to reveal the identity and, in the circumstances, all proceedings must necessarily take place without notice or reference to the father or further information about him, than that which the mother has volunteered.”

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P observed of this in Re H; Re G (Adoption: Consultation of Unmarried Fathers) [2001] 1 FLR 646 at para [31] that Holman J “assumed” that there was no power, having heard no argument to the contrary. She herself (see at para [52]) did not have to consider whether there is such power.

There may be some room for doubt as to whether, when he said “there is no power,” Holman J was referring to power as a matter of law or power as a matter of pragmatic reality. I doubt that, in strictness, there is as a matter of law no power in the court to order a mother to disclose the identity of her child’s father. After all, the powers of a judge exercising the inherent jurisdiction are theoretically limitless, though in practice there are well recognised limitations on the exercise of the jurisdiction. But whether it is proper, whether it is appropriate and prudent, to exercise such a power, assuming it to exist, whether it is appropriate and prudent to attempt to compel an unwilling mother to disclose the name of her child’s father, is a very different thing.

The fact is that the local authority and the guardian and the court have tried very hard but the mother has made her position perfectly clear. Patient explanations have been given to the mother, both out of court and in court, as to why it is so important from L’s point of view that we learn who her father is. The mother’s position remains as it has been throughout. There is very little prospect – in truth, virtually no prospect – that she is going to volunteer any further information about L’s father.

It may be, and the mother is steadfast in the assertion, that there is in fact nothing more to disclose. The local authority and the guardian (and not without grounds I have to say) suspect there is more she could tell us if she chose to.

Let me assume that this is so – I emphasise I am making no finding that it is. Where does it take us?

In the first place, although one can only speculate as to why the mother should be adopting such a stance (if indeed she is), I would not want to assume that she is acting otherwise than properly by her own lights. We take a different view, but for all I can know she may conscientiously believe that it is not in her daughter’s interests to know anything of her father – and who is to say that she might not be right.

But what am I to do? The mother has told me herself in court – not in the witness box on oath but from the well of the court – that there is nothing more she can tell us. There is no reason to believe that she would say anything different were she to be required to go into the witness box and either take the oath or affirm. It would naïve to imagine that someone who on this hypothesis is prepared to lie when addressing a judge direct is suddenly going to volunteer the truth merely because put on her oath.

And is it to be suggested, if she maintains her denial, that she should then be cross-examined (and if so with what degree of vigour?) so that the truth can be extracted from her? I confess that I find the idea very disturbing. There is something deeply unattractive and unsettling in the idea that a woman in the mother’s position should be cross-examined in order to compel her to reveal the name of her child’s father. And there is something deeply unattractive and unsettling in the idea that a woman in the mother’s position should be cross-examined (as on this hypothesis would almost inevitably be the case, for how else is cross-examination likely to elicit the relevant information) as to the nature, extent and duration of her relationship with the father. In relation to matters as personal and intimate as this we should be wary of seeking to open windows into people’s souls. And would it in any event be right to subject the mother to prying cross-examination on the (probably dubious) double hypothesis that she is at present not telling the truth but that, if cross-examined, the truth will out?

And in any event, where would cross-examination get us? It is possible that the mother would in fact make further disclosures, though I rather doubt it. Suppose, as I think much more likely, that she makes no further disclosures of any significance. I might, for all I know, be left with a powerful impression that she was not telling the truth, but that of itself would get us nowhere. Contempt could not be proved unless I was satisfied to the criminal standard – satisfied so that I was sure; satisfied beyond reasonable doubt – that the mother was telling lies. That, I suspect, is an unlikely outcome. And suppose that I was satisfied to the criminal standard that she was telling lies. Could it seriously be suggested that she should be punished, even sent to prison? Surely not. Punishment would surely be unthinkable.

The whole process smacks too much of the Inquisition to be tolerable. And it is not to be justified merely because we believe, however strongly, that what we are doing is being done in the best interests of a child. Here again, as it seems to me, the wise words of Holman J have a powerful resonance.

We can reason with someone in the mother’s position. We can seek to persuade. But we should not seek to force or to coerce – and how else in this context could one sensibly characterise the threat of cross-examination or the threat of punishment for contempt. Of course, as Holman J pointed out (see Z County Council v R [2001] 1 FLR 365 at page 375), the matter is not to be determined on the say-so of a mother, but we have to face the realities. And the reality here, in the particular circumstances of this case is, I am quite satisfied, that we have to accept what the mother has told us. It would be wrong to push matters any further. I decline to do so.

Mum can be asked, and persuaded to give the name of the father, but if she absolutely refuses, that’s an end to it. The Court are not going to compel her to give evidence, or commit her to prison if she refuses to answer. It would be advisable to record the efforts to explain the benefits to the child of knowing their father’s identity and her responses, but you can’t make her.

If the mother does provide the details of the father but asks that he not be contacted

the relevant case is

M v F [2011] EWCA Civ 273

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed81462

Mr Anelay and Mr Squire accept that “the starting point is that [F] should know of the existence of his son and should be able to participate in future care and adoption proceedings” and that “only in an exceptional case should that general rule be overridden”. This realistic position accords with the authorities as I see them. I would observe, in passing, that this approach is also consistent with another strand of authority which includes, notably, the House of Lords decision in Re D (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) [1996] AC 593. That case was concerned with whether particular evidence (part of a report of the guardian ad litem) should be disclosed to the mother in contested adoption proceedings but the five principles which Lord Mustill identified as governing that decision are illuminating when considering the more fundamental prior question of whether a parent should be informed of the very existence of the proceedings or even that they have a child. The principles are set out at page 615 of the report. All repay consideration. They culminate in the following:

“5. Non-disclosure should be the exception and not the rule. The court should be rigorous in its examination of the risk and gravity of the feared harm to the child, and should order non-disclosure only when the case for doing so is compelling.”

In Re X (Adoption: Confidential Procedure) [2002] EWCA Civ 828 the Court of Appeal added that the interests of the adult parties may also support non-disclosure in an appropriate case.

The appellant’s complaint is that the judge did not just look for exceptional circumstances but proceeded on the basis that only a significant physical risk would do and this was to set the test too high.

I agree that the authorities do not impose a requirement of significant physical risk. Harm and risk come in many guises and, like Thorpe LJ, I would be anxious about attempting to define what may make a case exceptional enough to justify departing from normal principles. It may be a moot point whether Mostyn J was actually setting himself a test involving significant physical harm or, as Thorpe LJ says, simply emphasising the high hurdle that will have to be overcome before a father who is married to the child’s mother and also living with her is kept in ignorance of the fact that he has a child and deprived of the chance to participate in the legal process relating to that child. Whatever the judge had in mind, however, the balance was inevitably going to come down against M’s applications and his determination is not in any way undermined by this reference of his to a significant physical risk.

However, the judge found, critically, that there was no medical or other expert objective evidence that supported M’s case, that it was “pure supposition” that revealing the child’s existence would affect F as adversely as M suggested it would, and that at most there would be a “degree of upset and confusion” which the judge was hopeful could be mitigated if the revelation was managed appropriately. This was not the sort of harm that would justify keeping F ignorant of his son’s existence and, as I have already observed, her application was bound to be refused.

Therefore, the Local Authority would need to explore with the mother her reasons for not wanting father to be told, and assess whether those reasons were sufficient to displace the starting point that F should know of the existence of his child and be able to participate in future care and adoption proceedings – the LA can examine the risk and gravity of the feared harm – but it is not REQUIRED that there be a significant physical risk.

In Re JL, both parents were aware and consenting to the relinquishing of the baby. There must be an element of doubt in a situation where a father does not know of the existence of the baby that it can be treated as a consensual adoption and thus that “nothing else will do” does not apply.

From Re X 2007 (as referred to above)

Rule 108 of the Family Proceedings (Adoption) Rules 2005 enables a local authority in circumstances such as this to “ask the High Court for directions on the need to give a father without parental responsibility notice of the intention to place a child for adoption.” So whether under the inherent jurisdiction or under that rule I plainly have jurisdiction to give the local authority the relief it seeks.

This is now Family Procedure Rules 2010

14.21. Where no proceedings have started an adoption agency or local authority may ask the High Court for directions on the need to give a father without parental responsibility notice of the intention to place a child for adoption.

So either under the Inherent Jurisdiction OR under FPR 2010 14.21 the Local Authority may ask the High Court for directions and guidance as to whether a father without PR should be told of the plan for the child to be adopted, and that is probably the safest way to resolve that issue.

Bear in mind the decision of Holman J in Re A and B and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council 2014

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/47.html

Where a father without PR who knew nothing about the care proceedings or adoption proceedings found out at a later stage and challenged the adoption successfully, with the child being placed with the paternal aunt. So a prospective adopter taking a child where the father has not been told does do so at some risk that a later challenge by said father might succeed in moving the child.

Right, so until the Courts are asked to deal with a relinquished baby where the child was concieved under a surrogacy arrangement, or an artificial insemination arrangement, or an international surrogacy, we know where we stand.

3 Comments

Posted in adoption, case law and tagged do a local authority have to tell family members if a mother wants to relinquish a baby, extended family and child given up for adoption, father not knowing of adoption, father not knowing of relinquished baby, mother wanting to adopt a child but not tell father, relinquish, relinquish for adoption, relinquished baby, relinquishing a child for adoption. Bookmark the permalink.

Court supplies of “whoop-ass” show no signs of running out

Posted on March 7, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

I noticed the other day when following some of the Brexit/Bremain debate, that we never hear about the European Wine-Lakes or Butter Mountains any more. You used to always hear that due to weird things in the Common Market, there was a huge oversupply of produce that was being added to faster than it was ever being consumed. I wonder, idly, whether the European Community has addressed this problem, or whether it never really existed, or whether there are still Wine-Lakes and Butter Mountains but the Press has just got bored of talking about them.

Anyway, one thing that is certainly being added to faster than it could ever be consumed is Her Majesty’s Court Service supply of cans of “whoop-ass”. Judges continue to try to use it as fast and heavily as they can, but there’s always more to spare. Use more, behind the scenes memos must be saying, whoop even more ass. Plaintive Court managers are protesting that fresh cases of cans of “whoop-ass” are arriving every day, and they are blocking fire exits and that the cleaners can no longer get to their mops and tins of Vim.

Long story short – yet another bout of judicial displeasure. (Rather more deserved than the last one)

D v E 2016

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed159351

This was a case in the High Court, a private law dispute between a father and an aunt, with international elements, disputed allegations of physical abuse and domestic violence, a child with multiple problems. So of course, the ideal person to undertake the section 7 report to assist the Court was a newly qualified social worker who knew nothing about Court proceedings or what a section 7 report was.

34. On 25 February 2015 His Honour Judge Millon directed the London Borough of Newham to prepare a report pursuant to the Children Act 1989 s 7 (by reason of the local authority having had prior involvement as a result of the section 47 investigation detailed above) considering the issue of whether C should live with the aunt or the father. On 9 July 2015 Newton J directed the social worker to prepare an addendum section 7 report in circumstances where the allocated social worker had not spoken to the partners of each of the parties seeking care of C, to C’s teacher nor to the SENCO worker allocated to C nor secured Police checks in respect of the adults involved. On 21 September 2015 I was required to repeat the direction of Newton J in circumstances where the social worker had still not undertaken these tasks. The social worker had at that date also yet to speak to C alone. I also made clear that the addendum report must include a parallel welfare analysis of the three options available to the court in relation to C’s care.

35. It transpired in oral evidence that the social worker is newly qualified and has never before authored a section 7 report. Her current position with Newham is her first. The social worker told me that her academic studies (a BSc in social work) did not cover the preparation of section 7 reports. She further made clear that the training afforded to her by Newham in preparation for completing what was to be her first section 7 report, comprised a ninety minute discussion with her supervisor.

36. Within this context, it became apparent that the social worker appeared to lack even a basic understanding of the nature of the proceedings in which she was being asked to provide a report, she describing these proceedings as being “private care proceedings” on 12 August 2015 when making enquiries of the hospital at which C was born.

37. Further, it was apparent from the evidence of the social worker (and the late filing of her section 7 report) that there was a substantial delay in the legal department at Newham communicating His Honour Judge Millon’s direction for a section 7 report to the social services department. This delay on the part of the legal department meant that a newly qualified social worker who was already prejudiced by her lack of experience in preparing a section 7 report was further challenged by having limited time in which to prepare what constituted a complex piece of work in respect of a child with complex needs in a complicated family situation spanning two continents.

38. Finally, it is important, and indeed concerning, to note that each of the social worker’s reports were signed off by her supervising Practice Manager as meeting the standards required by the court following a discussion between them. In the circumstances, the mistaken view of the social worker that she was doing that which was required of her was further amplified and reinforced by her supervising Practice Manager. This, perhaps and in part, explains the social worker’s repeated failures to comply with the express directions of the court.

39. Having listened to the evidence of the social worker I was left with the clear impression that her academic social work qualification and such training, administrative support and supervision as was provided to her by her employer left this newly qualified professional poorly equipped to undertake a competent report pursuant to section 7 of the Children Act 1989 in what is a complex and demanding private law case. Such criticisms of the social worker’s work as I feel compelled to make in this judgment must be seen in this context.

[Not quite sure it is as apparent to me that the delay was with Newham Legal Department as it was to this Judge. I have for many many years, at many many different Local Authorities, regularly received Court orders from the Court asking for a section 7 report to be undertaken within 8 weeks of the order, but receiving said order a week after the report was due. I suspect, as a result of cuts – and of course the boxes of Whoop-Ass obscuring the printer, that this is happening more and more. With Newham Legal not being present to set out to the Court when the section 7 order was received by them, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not that the Courts ever do anything wrong, ever.]

I think that it was decent of MacDonald J to set out the context that these failings were not the social worker’s fault, but the fault of a system that allocates a case that was apparently complex and difficult to a brand new worker. (Even if you knew nothing at all about the case, the word “High Court” ought to have been sufficient to make the people allocating a section 7 think again)

Within that context, the failings of the report were considerable :-

40. The substantive section 7 report contains a significant number of factual errors, contradictions and omissions. These include the periods of time that C has been in the care of the aunt. Of even greater concern, and quite inexplicably, the social worker did not speak to the mother of C, or make any attempt to speak to her, before reaching her conclusions and filing her substantive report. Indeed, the account of the family set out at the beginning of the report simply makes no mention of the mother at all. In addition to being extremely poor practice this had significant forensic consequences. In particular, it meant that the report did not consider the significance of the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and relied solely on the father’s account of the history of the parents’ relationship. Further, when pressed in cross examination by Mr Woolley, the social worker had to concede that even now that she is aware of the issue of domestic violence she has not sought to investigate that issue further with the parties. She likewise conceded that she had not discussed with the father his motivation for making his application nor had she discussed with him his removal of C from the aunt’s care in February 2015.

41. The social worker’s substantive report contains only the most cursory examination of the factors set out in the welfare checklist. Whilst C’s wishes and feelings as expressed to the social worker are set out (about which I will say more below) they are not analysed in anyway by reference to C’s age and understanding or in the context of his ADHD or family situation. C’s health needs are summarised as being “ADHD” with “no other concerns”. There is no mention of C’s global developmental delay, the consequences of his medical conditions or the nature and level of support in place in respect of the same. In relation to the effect of a change of circumstances on C the social worker simply concludes that “if given time to prepare for a change in circumstances C will be able to prepare and adapt” but offers no explanation of why she reaches such conclusion. In respect of the capability of those seeking to care for C in respect of the father the social worker’s conclusions are limited to noting that the father and his partner are “aware” of C’s health and education needs, have identified a school for C and “report that they have routines and boundaries in place when C visits and these would be in place if he lived with them permanently”.

42. Within this context, and as I have already alluded to, the substantive section 7 report contains no parallel welfare analysis of the competing options for C’s care. Indeed, during the course of cross examination by Mr Woolley, the social worker was forced, properly, to concede that her substantive report contains no analysis of C’s best interests. The report is simply a list of facts and statements by the parties followed by a bald conclusion that C should move to live with his father. The social worker simply dismisses out of hand the aunt’s application for a special guardianship (seemingly on the ground that social worker believed such an application to be “irrelevant” in circumstances where the mother had left C with the aunt under a private arrangement). The report recommends that C have direct contact twice per year with the aunt without explaining the welfare rationale for this recommendation.

43. With respect to her first addendum section 7 report dated 30 October 2015 the picture is, regrettably, no better. The social worker had been provided with a wealth of new information from the mother concerning allegations of domestic violence and the contents of the special guardianship report. The social worker had further been provided with information from C’s SENCO, further information from the partners of each parent and the aunt and the disclosure of the relevant Police records relating to allegations of domestic violence and the mother’s medical records. The social worker had also spoken to C alone.

44. Again, notwithstanding that the social worker had been provided with this new information, some of it directly contradicting previous statements made by the father, the addendum report contains no analysis. Further, despite the order of Newton J of 9 July 2015 the social worker had not sought PNC checks in relation to the adults involved. Despite my direction there is no parallel welfare analysis, the report, once again, constituting simply a list of facts and statements with a bald conclusion that C should live with his father. The only welfare factor examined is that of C’s wishes and feelings although, once again, there is no attempt to analyse them by reference to C’s age and understanding or in the context of his ADHD or family situation. I agree with Mr Woolley’s submission that the addendum report gives every impression of the social worker having placed determinative weight on C’s wishes and feelings (an impression reinforced during the social worker’s oral evidence when she stated that C’s wishes and feelings are “paramount”). This time the addendum report recommends, again without explaining the welfare rationale, that C have direct contact four times per year with the aunt.

45. The social worker’s final, undated, addendum report is subject of the same flaws. Again, notwithstanding that she had been provided with new information, and in particular the details of the father’s conviction for violence, and the fact that she had been told by C during a home visit on 18 November 2015 that he was now unsure about what he wanted, the addendum report again contains no analysis. The social worker conceded that she had undertaken no analysis of the significance for or impact of the father’s conviction on her recommendation. Again the addendum report constitutes simply a list of facts and statements with a bald conclusion that the father “has made the necessary changes in his life to enable him the care for C” (although what those changes might be is not specified) and that C should live with his father.

46. I have of course borne in mind that a social worker’s day to day role and knowledge of the court process differs from that of a Child and Family Court Reporter (see Re W (Welfare Reports) [2995] 2 FLR 142 at 146). I have also borne in mind the evidence I have heard from the social worker at this hearing regarding her lack of experience and training. However, for the reasons set out above the substantive and addendum section 7 reports prepared by the social worker nonetheless fall well below the standard expected by the court.

47. In the circumstances summarised above, and where neither the substantive section 7 report or the addendum reports contain any welfare analysis whatsoever of the issues engaged in this case nor a welfare analysis of the competing options available for C, and where the social worker was, despite being given every opportunity, entirely unable in her oral evidence to articulate the analysis and reasons underpinning her recommendation, I have felt unable to attach any weight to the recommendation of the social worker.

48. In addition to constituting a disservice to C and his family, the failure of the social worker, under the supervision of her Practice Manager, to complete her work competently leaves the court in the invidious position of not having before it part of the information the court decided, at the case management stage, was required to determine this matter. I have however concluded that, notwithstanding difficulties with the section 7 reports, I have sufficient information to undertake the forensic analysis I am required to in order to determine the applications before me.

49. In the case of Re K (Special Guardianship Order) [2012] 1 FLR 1265 the Court of Appeal held that where work is incomplete at the date of the final hearing the court must look at the information that is available and determine whether further work is required having regard, inter alia, to developments since the work was directed, the impact of delay and the totality of the evidence available. The Court of Appeal noted that having undertaken such a review it may transpire that evidence is available that covers the ground that the missing work would have covered. In my judgment, having regard to the totality of the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that that is indeed the position in this case.

50. The London Borough of Newham should note that had I been forced to adjourn this hearing due to the deficiencies in the section 7 reports this would have been a case in which, having regard to the decision of Cobb J in Re HB, PB, OB and Croydon London Borough Council [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam), I would inevitably have had to consider whether a non-party costs order should be made against the local authority.

Section 7 reports are always very tricky. They are vitally important documents to the Court and the parties, but they often come across to Local Authorities as a demand for a report without any covering information as to what the issues are, where the child lives, what is being alleged by the parties, and the questions that the Court specifically want assistance in answering. That is compounded by the fact that (a) They often arrive late from the Court (b) Local Authorities do sometimes sit on them before allocating them (c) They often get allocated to a social worker with very little Court experience such as here and (d) almost all Local Authorities do not operate a scheme where the reports are checked by a lawyer.

[Given that my experience of private law cases is that they are a sponge for time, and dealing with a single private law case can easily absorb hours of scarce lawyer time, I can see why that is and please don’t read this in any way as a request or desire for me to become more involved in private law cases than I already am. A single private law case can easily take up the same amount of my time and volume of emails as a dozen care cases…]

It was quite tempting to suggest that Courts and parties label particularly complex section 7 reports as such, to make it plain to the Local Authority that this case needs urgent and experienced attention. But in my days as a photocopier-monkey, I used to have a photocopier machine that had a green Turbo button on it, and if you held it down, the machine would go faster. Of course, I held it down all the time. The machine broke. A lot. By the same token, everyone would put “Complex” on all of their requests….

[It would, however, be worth Local Authorities assuming that a section 7 request from the High Court is going to need some careful handling]

On entirely separate matters, the FDAC analysis is out today.

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/new-findings-show-that-fdacs-save-taxpayers-money#.Vt1xqfmLRaQ

I myself have done some impressive calculations that show that if I eat a jammy dodger today, not only will I have saved money by eating a jammy dodger rather than some beluga caviar, but that the additional sugar content of the jammy dodger will mean that I have a reduced life expectancy, which means that I won’t need to set aside money for my retirement, an impressive saving. Additionally, eating the jammy dodger has a 5% chance of assisting me not to take up smoking, and as I might otherwise smoke for the next twenty years, that’s a cost saving that I need to factor in. The time I spend eating the jammy dodger might be time that I otherwise spend on my Playstation on the Hitman Beta, and thus there is a chance that there might be medical savings to be recouped from the potential in years to come of carpal tunnel syndrome. My dog might benefit from any crumbs I have dropped, meaning a saving on dog biscuits. I do have to offset for the additional electricity that the Roomba will consume to pick up any crumbs that the dog misses (but knowing my dog, that is quite unlikely). It is also quite plausible that if I had not had the momentary high of the chewy jamminess of the biscuit that I might eventually end up trying to compensate for this by taking up an expensive hobby such as hang-gliding with associated start up costs – the NHS could save substantially by not having to treat the broken leg that I could notionally sustain.

All in all, it emerges that every pound I spend on Jammy Dodgers results in a saving to me of £2.30.

Imagine how much I could save if I decided to eat “Pie in the Sky” instead.

/sarcasm

7 Comments

Posted in case law, judicial spanking, social work and tagged costing, D v E 2016, FDAC, inadequate section 7 report, MacDonald J, newly qualified social worker asked to complete section 7 report, pie in the sky, section 7 report, social work inexperience. Bookmark the permalink.

Wasted costs orders against everyone!

Posted on March 5, 2016 by suesspiciousminds

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this. It raises some massive points of financial implications for solicitors, particularly when agreeing to take on a case involving medical or police disclosure. It places on them a financial risk that might very well not be worth taking, given the narrow margins on which businesses are currently operating. The Judge did not, it seems to me, take proper account of the public policy implications of this decision.

A public law case was listed for a 2 day finding of fact hearing. The Local Authority had been ordered to obtain police and medical disclosure. It appeared that some things which clearly by close reading of other documents were known to exist within the police possession had not found their way into police disclosure. When this came to light, the hearing had to be adjourned.

The Court then embarked on an exercise to see who was responsible and considered the making of costs orders.

Re L (Case Management : Wasted Costs) 2016

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B8.html

What makes it quite remarkable is that in most wasted costs cases what happens is that one side is assessed to be responsible for the mix-up or failure, and the other parties get their costs paid by them. Here, the Judge determined that whilst the Local Authority was chiefly to blame, all of the parties had to bear some of the blame.

Non-compliance with case management directions – who is at fault?

In this case,[2015] 1 FLR 1092 case management orders were made promptly (on day 14) for the disclosure of medical records and police records. The medical records were disclosed promptly save for the photographs. The failure to disclose the medical photographs was not identified by any party until 20^th January 2016.
The police responded promptly to the disclosure order but failed to disclose the audio recordings of the parents’ police interviews. The first approach to the police for ‘further disclosure’ was made by the local authority on 14^th October. The first time the lack of this material was raised by any other party was in an e-mail from the mother’s solicitor to the local authority on 2^nd November.
Who is responsible for these failings? Is the failure to disclose the medical photographs the responsibility of the hospital or of the local authority for not going back to the hospital to ask where the photographs were, or of the other parties for not raising this issue either with the local authority or with the court? Is the failure to disclose the audio recordings of the parents’ police interviews the responsibility of Leicestershire Police (who were ordered by the court to disclose ‘witness statements, interviews, photographs and medical reports in respect of the injuries’), or of the local authority (to whom the police were ordered to make disclosure and upon whom was laid the obligation of disclosing the police material to the other parties), or of the other parties for their delay in raising this issue either with the local authority or with the court?
Leicestershire police were ordered to make disclosure to the local authority. The local authority was ordered to disclose to the other parties the material received from the police. It was also ordered to obtain and disclose medical records. Is the scope of the local authority’s duty limited to forwarding on to the other parties the material received from the police and the hospital? In my judgment, it is not so limited. The local authority is not providing a postal service. It is under a duty not only to disclose what it receives but also,

(a) to consider with care the material received from the police and hospital;

(b) to satisfy itself that the disclosure complies with the terms of the relevant case management direction; if it does not comply then,

(c) to identify any documents or categories of document that appear to have been omitted;

(d) to contact the police/hospital promptly seeking immediate disclosure of the missing documents; and if disclosure of the missing documents is not made promptly then,

(e) to inform the court and seek urgent directions; and

(f) to keep the other parties informed.

Whilst the primary duty for obtaining and disclosing police and medical records rests with the local authority, it is clear from the rules to which I have referred that the other parties also have a responsibility. They, too, are under a duty to assist the court in the process of active case management and to inform the court of any non-compliance. With respect to police and medical disclosure there is a duty,

(a) to consider with care the material disclosed by the local authority;

(b) to satisfy itself that the disclosure complies with the terms of any case management direction relating to that disclosure;

(c) to identify any documents or categories of document that appear to have been omitted;

(d) to inform the local authority promptly with respect to any gaps in the disclosure; and, if the missing documents are not provided promptly,

(e) to inform the court and seek urgent directions.

In my judgment it is clear from the rules and authorities to which I have referred that these duties exist. They are a necessary part of the process of enabling and assisting the court to comply with its duties to further the overriding objective and to complete care cases within 26 weeks.
In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the responsibility for the failure identified rests primarily with the local authority. However, I am equally satisfied that the solicitors for the parents and the guardian also bear some responsibility.

Well, that’s all lovely in an ideal world, but do solicitors have the time to inspect each and every document with a fine-toothed comb, particularly in a case where counsel are instructed? They certainly don’t get paid for such a task.

So what happens then? Well, one sensible approach would be for the LA to pay some of the costs but not all of them, given that there were failings on the part of the other parties. That’s not what happened here.

The Court was actually considering punishing the solicitors involved by disallowing a share of their costs. The Legal Aid Agency were strongly suggesting that this was not a power open to the Court unless they were carrying out their function of assessing the public funding certificates by way of taxation (which would come at the end of the case)

Disallowing costs payable to a legally aided solicitor

Navigating one’s way around the labyrinthine complexities of the current legal aid scheme is a significant challenge. For present purposes it is necessary to have regard to the Legal Aid Agency’s Standard Civil Contract 2013 specification: General Rules (section 1-6) (July 2015 amendment), to the Standard Civil Contract 2013 specification: Family category specific rules (section 7) (July 2015 amendment), to the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 and to the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No2) Regulations 2014.
The solicitors for the legally aided parties contend that disallowing part of a standard fee payable to a legally aided solicitor pursuant to the provisions of s.51(6) is not simply inappropriate but that it is not possible. The basis of that submission is that the standard fee for legal representation is a fixed fee payable irrespective of the amount of work undertaken (subject to the right to ‘escape’ from the standard fee to which I referred earlier). It follows, therefore, as a matter both of logic and of law, that so far as concerns the costs of any solicitor entitled only to the standard fee there cannot have been any ‘wasted costs’. In this case, even if a solicitor entitled only to the standard fee undertook work on 20^th, 21^st and 22^nd January which would not have been necessary had the failure of police disclosure been identified at the time it arose, that solicitor will receive no extra payment for that work but will simply receive the fixed fee to which he or she would in any event have been entitled. A letter to the court from the LAA supports that argument,
The position would appear to be different so far as concerns the costs of a solicitor who ‘escapes’ the standard fee. As I noted earlier, that solicitor is entitled to be paid for the work undertaken on an hourly rate basis (the hourly rate being that prescribed in the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 as amended). In those circumstances it is clear that the argument set out in the previous paragraph does not apply. Even if the court does not have the power to make a wasted costs order against a solicitor entitled only to the standard fee (a proposition about which I am doubtful) there would seem to be no reason why the court could not make a wasted costs order against a solicitor who ‘escapes’ the standard fee.
However, the LAA raises a second issue and that relates to its power to act on an order made by the court under s.51(6) disallowing all or part of a legally aided solicitor’s entitlement to remuneration. In its letter to the court, the LAA asserts that,

‘The court could only disallow a solicitor’s costs under their contract with the LAA where the court is performing a detailed assessment pursuant to that contract (see paragraphs 6.37 – 6.38 of the Standard Contract Specification…) However, you could make observations to help the assessing authority (whether that is the LAA or the Court) in its assessment.

‘Where legally aided work falls under one of the Standard Fee Schemes, the LAA usually would have no choice but to pay the standard fees, unless the claim is not true, accurate and reasonable. The nature of the standard fee scheme is that in some circumstances a legal aid provider may receive a relatively high payment for not necessarily doing a large amount of work, whilst in the circumstances of a different case, the same standard fee may be considered to be relatively low. However, if you do make any observations on the amount of costs claimed and suggest that some costs should be disallowed, the possibilities, within the fixed fee scheme would be as follows:

1. Claims can ‘escape’ the fixed fee where, if paid at hourly rates the solicitors would be paid more (i.e. for Legal Representation, where costs on an Hourly Rate basis would exceed twice the Standard Fee, the solicitors would be paid at hourly rates). If in the circumstances of this case the solicitors have escaped the fixed fee and are to be paid at hourly rates, any disallowance (or recommended disallowance) of costs on assessment could reduce the amount payable to the solicitors;

2. The costs of the case can be disallowed in full, which would lead to a nil payment to the provider irrespective of the fixed fee scheme;

3. If the solicitors have breached some term of the contract, such as the requirement to carry out all contract work in a timely manner and with all skill and care, and as a result caused the LAA a loss (for example if a further hearing were required because of the solicitor’s default which has led the LAA to make further payments), then the LAA could set off the loss it has been caused against any payment due to the solicitors (i.e. the fixed fee they would be due to receive)’

Paragraphs 6.37 and 6.38 of the Standard Contact Specification provide that:

Court assessment

6.37 Except where:

(a) it is or may be necessary for the court to carry out a detailed assessment of costs payable to the Client by another party to the proceedings; or

(b) having regard to interests of the Client and public funds, the weight or complexity of the case and all the other circumstances, we consider it appropriate to direct that the costs be subject to detailed assessment,

your Claim for payment for Licensed Work will be assessed by us.

6.38 A direction under Paragraph 6.37(b) may relate to an individual case or to any class of case, identified by the level of costs to be assessed or otherwise. In cases where costs are to be subject to assessment by the court, detailed assessment proceedings must be commenced within the time specified in the Civil Procedure Rules.

If the LAA’s submissions are correct then that would seem to represent a significant narrowing of the scope of s.51(6) in a case involving a legally aided solicitor. It would mean that although under s.51(6) the court could order a legally aided party’s solicitor to pay another party’s wasted costs, the court would have no power to disallow any wasted costs incurred by that same solicitor.
I note that neither the Standard Civil Contract 2013 specification: General Rules (section 1-6) (July 2015 amendment), or the Standard Civil Contract 2013 specification: Family category specific rules (section 7) (July 2015 amendment) refer to the court’s powers under s.51(6). With all due respect to the LAA, it seems to me that the key to understanding paragraphs 6.37 and 6.38 of the Standard Contract Specification is to be found in the heading: ‘Court assessment’. Those paragraphs deal with the question ‘who should assess my costs’. Section 51(6) addresses a completely different issue. Section 51(6) provides a power to penalise a solicitor as a result of whose conduct ‘wasted costs’ are incurred (whether another party’s costs or his/her own costs).
It is my preliminary view that the court’s power to make a wasted costs order is not confined in the way suggested by the legally aided solicitors and by the LAA. However, I am satisfied that in this case it is possible to dispose of the wasted costs issue without determining those points. That said, in my judgment the LAA’s arguments do raise important issues which need to be authoritatively addressed.

This disallowing of costs to a publicly funded solicitor can easily move a case from barely profitable to making a loss for the firm. Not to mention the absolute headache with the Legal Aid Agency in recovering the money. Does anyone actually benefit from this at all? Haven’t we just spent a huge amount of money arguing about this issue? Not to mention any costs of a potential appeal, given the wider implications for solicitors across the country?

In a concluding paragraph, the Judge bemoans the increase in demand by additional care proceedings on the Court service and that no additional resources have been provided, whilst ignoring that the very same thing applies to all of the other parties to the case.

Conclusion

Statistics show that in recent months, nationally there has been a significant increase in the number of new care proceedings issued. Cafcass statistics show that over the ten months from 1^st April 2015 to 31^st January 2016 the number of new care proceedings issued was up by almost 13% on the previous year. During that same period The Family Court in Leicester experienced a 39% increase in new care cases – three times the national average. That increase in workload has not been matched by any increase in court resources. I make that point simply to underline the fact that court time is a precious resource. The court can ill-afford contested hearings being vacated because of the failure of one or more of the parties to comply adequately with the obligations placed upon them by the rules and by case management orders made by the court.
In this case I am satisfied that the solicitors for all four parties are responsible for the errors identified. All four were responsible for the wasting of court time and for the wasting of costs. I have identified wasted advocacy costs incurred by the legally aided parties amounting to £5000. I shall make a wasted costs order against the local authority requiring it to pay 50% of that sum, £2,500. I have also identified that the local authority has incurred wasted advocacy costs of £1950. I shall make wasted costs orders against the solicitors for the legally aided parties jointly to pay 50% of those costs (£975 i.e. £325 per solicitor).

Of course there were failings here, and it would have been markedly better had the Local Authority involved raised with the Court and the parties their concerns that the police disclosure was incomplete and missing important documents. Was this, however, a proportionate response to the difficulty? I am sure that all lawyers have experience of arriving at Court for a final hearing with time and money spent in preparing a case only to find that the case is double-listed or insufficient time is available – the parties in those cases – of which there were very very many, did not attempt to demand that the Court Service pay their wasted costs.

I note that the Judge here refers to the Norgrove report on Family Justice. Perhaps it is useful to bear in mind this passage of the report.

Our recommendations are intended to restore the respective responsibilities of courts and local authorities. But to change the law does not tackle the root cause

of the difficulties. This stems we believe from a deep rooted distrust of local authorities and unbalanced criticism of public care, as discussed in paragraphs

3.21 – 3.26 above. This in turn fuels dissatisfaction on the part of local authorities with the courts, further damaging relationships.

3.46.The result is that the relationship between local authorities and courts can verge on the dysfunctional. For the system to work better it is not acceptable for each

group to sit on the sidelines and criticise the other. A failure in one part of the system must be seen to be a failure of all. Courts and local authorities, and other

professionals, should work together to tackle this at a national and local level.

The report was published in 2011. When one reads the judgments over the last few years, 2011 starts to look like a golden era of co-operation and trust between the different stakeholders in Family Justice. I would gladly roll the clock back to 2011 in that regard.

[I would also deprecate the habit in this judgment of the use of (sic) for what are clearly utterly minor typographical errors in emails sent by the Local Authority – emails are documents which are typed in haste, particularly when trying urgently and desperately to resolve a pressing problem and (sic) is an uncalled for dig. I also note that the Judge did not apply the same (sic) standard to emails received from counsel, which had similar minor typographical errors. I also note that this case was listed for a fact finding hearing despite the allegations being substantially short of the Court of Appeal guidance as to when a separate fact finding hearing should be heard…]

16 Comments

Posted in case law, costs and tagged 2016 EWFC B8, costs, disallowed costs of publicly funded parties, his honour judge bellamy, Re L (Case Management :Wasted costs) 2016, solicitors duties to check disclosure, wasted costs. Bookmark the permalink.

suesspiciousminds

Author Archives: suesspiciousminds

Bit of a c( ) ck up on the old anger management front

A sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham (diplomatic immunity)

Contempt of Court and right to silence

Disguised compliance

High Court gets into the groove

All along the Watchtower

Relinquished baby, chapter and some verses

Wasted costs orders against everyone!

Follow Blog via Email

Nonsense, family law, sarcasm. Not always in equal proportions

Recent Posts

Follow me on Twitter

Archives

Top Posts & Pages

Categories

Blogroll