Justice: how open in family proceedings?

‘Advocacy assistance’ and open justice

 

When the Government proposals come on stream – as surely they will, eventually – for instruction of a court advocate to cross-examine a domestic violence complainant (‘advocacy assistance’) where her alleged abuser acts in person, the question of whether the hearings in question are secret (also called ‘confidential’), private or in open court will revive. The media surely will want to see how the new scheme – which had such publicity earlier in the year (see eg Observer/Guardian of 12 February 2017) – is working.

 

The Family Procedure Rules Committee has defined all proceedings covered by the rules for which they are responsible – Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) – as to be heard in ‘private’ (FPR 2010 r 27.10), save where otherwise indicated. The term ‘private’ is not defined. Plainly it is something different from ‘open court’; but does it mean entirely secret, or confidential (see Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261 sub nom Clibbery v Allan [2002] 1 FLR 565), or does it mean only that public may be admitted if the court agrees. And if so, are the parties to remain anonymous; is the judgment public; and can anyone see any of the documents generated by the proceedings?

 

Open justice principle in civil and criminal proceedings

 

Much of a definition of ‘private’ turns on application of the open justice principle to a variety of different family proceedings; but it is worth being clear at the outset that this principle applies to procedural issues in family as it does in all court proceedings, including, for example:

 

  • Non-parties being able to read hearing documents (as was the case in Guardian v Westminster (below); and by ‘hearing documents’ is meant those read by the judge in connection with the case: eg skeleton arguments, filed statements etc: per Lord Bingham in Smithkline Beecham v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, [1999] 4 All ER 498, [2000] FSR 1 per Lord Bingham CJ);
  • Restrictions on release of disclosed documents (‘the implied undertaking’, Riddick v Thames Board Mills [1971] 1 QB 881, CA; and CPR 1998 r 31.22);
  • Publicity or not, for the names of parties (see eg PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26, [2016] AC 1081, [2016] 2 FLR 251);
  • Publication of the court’s judgement, anonymised or not (Norman v Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 49)
  • Anonymity for children in public proceedings (JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 96, [2015] 1 WLR 3647);
  • Anonymity of witnesses, expert witnesses etc (Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd[1979] AC 440; Khuja (below);
  • The Art 8 rights of children balanced against those (Art 10 and Human Rights Act 1998 s 12(4)) of the press (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2005] 1 FLR 591; PJS (above)).

 

Space does not permit that all of these subjects be covered here; but the same principles recur. For example in PJS Lady Hale made comments on the importance of consideration of the Art 8 rights of children affected, where publicity is concerned; and Guardian v Westminster (above) dealt with whether the Guardian – after the hearing of an extradition case – could see papers read by the court (yes they could). Neither case was directly concerned with whether anyone could attend a hearing in open court.

 

The Humpty-Dumpty question: open court, private or secret

 

The issues raised by this article require a return to what is meant by (1) ‘open court’, (2) ‘private’ (or ‘chambers’) hearings and (3) secret hearings (formerly called ‘in camera’). This is territory tramped over by a variety case law and statutory feet (and see Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P and Humpty Dumpty (below)); but the starting point is the common law. This was recently explained by Lord Sumption (with whom his four Supreme Court justice colleagues agreed) in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49:

 

[12] With limited exceptions, the English courts administer judgment in public, at hearings which anyone may attend within the limits of the court’s capacity and which the press may report. In the leading case, Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, public hearings were described by Lord Loreburn (p 445) as the ‘inveterate rule’ and the historical record bears this out. In the common law courts the practice can be dated back to the origins of the court system.

 

It is the ‘limited’ exceptions with which this article is concerned; for the ‘open justice principle’ (as Toulson LJ defined it in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 WLR 1343) probably runs parallel with the origins and history of the court system itself.

 

In Scott (a nullity case which should have been heard in open court) Earl Loreburn dealt with the main exceptions to the open justice principle as follows (at [1913] AC 417 at 445:

 

I cannot think that the High Court has an unqualified power in its discretion to hear civil proceedings with closed doors. The inveterate rule is that justice shall be administered in open Court. I do not speak of the parental jurisdiction regarding lunatics or wards of Court, or of what may be done in chambers, which is a distinct and by no means short subject, or of special statutory restrictions. I speak of the trial of actions including petitions for divorce or nullity in the High Court…

 

He added, as did other of their lordships, where ‘the subject-matter of the action would be destroyed by a hearing in open Court, as in a case of some secret process of manufacture, the doors may be closed’. To deny this might be to deny justice: ‘an aggrieved person, entitled to protection against one man who had stolen his secret, would not ask for it on the terms that the secret was to be communicated to all the world. There would be in effect a denial of justice.’

 

The ‘parental jurisdiction’, which subsists in proceedings under Children Act 1989 and in many cases in the Court of Protection (though open court principles are being developed there) – that is, Lord Sumption’s ‘exceptions’ – was explained by Viscount Haldane LC (at 437) as follows:

 

… The exceptions are themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of Courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done. In the two cases of wards of Court and of lunatics the Court is really sitting primarily to guard the interests of the ward or the lunatic. Its jurisdiction is in this respect parental and administrative, and the disposal of controverted questions is an incident only in the jurisdiction. It may often be necessary, in order to attain its primary object, that the Court should exclude the public. The broad principle which ordinarily governs it therefore yields to the paramount duty, which is the care of the ward or the lunatic.

 

He went on to deal with the ‘secret process’ point, and concluded:

 

… As the paramount object must always be to do justice, the general rule as to publicity, after all only the means to an end, must accordingly yield. But the burden lies on those seeking to displace its application in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration. The question is by no means one which, consistently with the spirit of our jurisprudence, can be dealt with by the judge as resting in his mere discretion as to what is expedient. The latter must treat it as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity.

 

The modern law

 

Starting from the open justice principle, as stated in Scott and reaffirmed countless times since then, what may be said to be the modern exceptions.

 

In criminal proceedings the principle in relation to freedom of expression (European Convention 1950 Art 10) has been held to override the interests of a child’s right to protection of family life (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2005] 1 FLR 591; R (Trinity Mirror) v Croydon Crown Court [2008] EWCA Crim 50, [2008] QB 770).

 

In civil proceedings generally Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12 provides that just because a court is sitting in private does not mean that publicity will be a contempt of court except in the case of a list in s 12(1). These would have been recognised by their lordships in Scott (subject to addition of national security (which might have occurred to them in 1914, the year after Scott was decided) and of modern statutory references). The list in s 12(1) is as follows:

 

(a)where the proceedings—

(i)relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors;

(ii)are brought under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or

(iii)otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;]

(b)where the proceedings are brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005…;

(c)where the court sits in private for reasons of national security during that part of the proceedings about which the information in question is published;

(d)where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is in issue in the proceedings;

(e)where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceedings or of information of the description which is published.

 

CPR 1998 r 39.2(3) provides a similar list to which only are added (c), (e) and (f) (below):

 

(3) A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if –

(a)publicity would defeat the object of the hearing;

(b)it involves matters relating to national security;

(c)it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality;

(d)a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party;

(e)it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing;

(f)it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or

(g)the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice.

 

For family proceedings covered by Family Procedure Rules 2010, the rules committee have asserted, somewhat inscrutably:

 

27.10 Hearings in private

(1)   Proceedings to which these rules apply will be held in private, except –

(a)where these rules or any other enactment provide otherwise;

(b)subject to any enactment, where the court directs otherwise.

(2) For the purposes of these rules, a reference to proceedings held ‘in private’ means proceedings at which the general public have no right to be present.

 

Neither this rule, nor either of s 12(1) or r 39.2(3) (nor CPR 1998 as a whole) defines what is meant by ‘private’, save to say that the public have no right to be present (as distinct from, presumably, the right to ask to be present?). The rule must also be read subject to the right of ‘accredited representatives’ of the press and other media and others, with permission, to be in court for private hearings (r 27.11(2)(f) and (g)).

 

The question remains: is there any law on what is meant by ‘private’; and if so can the rules committee override that law? The seeker for an answer to that question goes back, again, to the common law.

 

Meaning of ‘private’

 

As the then new CPR 1998 (in accordance with Civil Procedure Act 1997) were approaching a final draft, the committee chairman, Lord Woolf MR (with Aldous and Chadwick LJJ: it was a judgement of the court) considered the meaning of open court and ‘chambers’ hearings in Hodgson v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1056 (judgment: 12 February 1998). The court’s conclusion was that it was open to a party to publish what was said in chambers (ie ‘in private’: see 1070) unless the case comes within those listed in s 12(1).

 

Proceedings excluded from publication (AJA 1960 s 12(1)) are described as ‘secret’ (emphases supplied by the judges):

 

As [AJA 1960 s 12(1)] makes clear, the publication of information relating to proceedings held in private (i.e. chambers) is not in itself contempt except in the specific cases identified in s 12(1) (which do not apply here) unless the court makes an order prohibiting publication when it has “power to do so” (s 12(1)(e)). Nor is the publication of the whole or part of the order made by a court sitting in private a contempt (s 12(2)). The general position is that any judgment including a judgment in chambers is normally a public document….

A distinction has to be clearly drawn between the normal situation where a court sits in chambers and when a court sits in camera in the exceptional situations recognised in Scott v. Scott   [1913] AC 417 or the court sits in chambers and the case falls in the categories specified in section 12(1) of the Act of 1960 (which include issues involving children, national security, secret processes and the like). Section 12(1) also refers to the court having prohibited publication. Such proceedings are appropriately described as secret; proceedings in chambers otherwise are not appropriately so described.

 

As can be seen the Court of Appeal distinguishes between hearings ‘in private’ (or in chambers) where information can be published and the public may be admitted; and hearings ‘in secret’ (formerly in camera) which are those to which the exceptions in Scott and s 12(1) apply.

 

Allan v Clibbery: ‘private’ and Family Law Act 1996 Part 4

 

What are ‘chambers’ (ie ‘private’) hearings? Of chambers hearings the Court of Appeal in Hodgson said (at 1072):

 

In relation to hearings in chambers … The public has no right to attend hearings in chambers because of the nature of the work transacted in chambers and because of the physical restrictions on the room available but, if requested, permission should be granted to attend when and to the extent that this is practical.

 

And this is what r 27.10(2) appears, almost exactly, to say: ‘no right to be present’; and, as will be seen, this is the formula preferred by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P in a later constitution of the Court of Appeal (Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261 sub nom Clibbery v Allan [2002] 1 FLR 565).

 

Allan v Clibbery (above) remains the main source for family lawyers considering open justice and the principles on which it is based. It is also of relevance to the question of press attendance at hearings of, or publicity arising from, cases under Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4 (which include Allan v Clibbery itself and the cases of alleged abusers cross-examining complainants in person). It was a case under Pt 4, where Ms Clibbery published information and documents arising from the case to, amongst others, the Daily Mail. On appeal from Munby J, the Court of Appeal agreed with him in the result and held that she could publicise information and certain documents from the proceedings; though the proceedings should have been held, on Dame Elizabeth’s definition, ‘in private’.

 

There is no reason which that definition should not be the same in FPR 2010; so that the exception occurs for ‘secret’ hearings cases, that is those listed in AJA 1960 s 12(1).

 

Common law and open justice

 

The starting point for a review of the law on open justice, and private’ or ‘secret’ (or ‘confidential’) hearings, must be Toulson LJ in the Court of Appeal in Guardian v Westminster (above) (subsequently approved by Supreme Court in eg A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25, [2015] 1 AC 558). He explained the status in law of the open justice principle as follows:

 

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied.

 

Generally speaking a fundamental rights – and as a common law principle open justice has been confirmed by European Convention 1950 Art 6.1 – cannot be overridden, even by Parliament, by ‘general or ambiguous words’ (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Simms [1999] UKHL 33; [2000] 2 AC 115) This was explained by Lord Hoffman in exp Simms (at [2000] 2 AC 115 at 131) as follows:

 

Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual.

 

In Allan v Clibbery Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P referred to Scott, Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12(1), Hodgson v Imperial (above) and CPR 1998 r 39.2(3). Whilst she concluded that the then Family Proceedings Rules 1991 were intra vires the then rule-makers, she also concluded on terminology that the different types of court hearing broke down into open court, private and confidential. Dame Elizabeth said:

 

[19] … I am driven to recall Humpty Dumpty: ‘When I use a word – it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

[20]   I would therefore suggest that there are three categories of case, those heard in open court, those heard in private and those heard in secret where the information disclosed to the court and the proceedings remain confidential.

 

On this basis, the Family Law Act 1996 Pt 4 proceedings were ‘in private’ but not confidential. Miss Clibbery was therefore permitted to release documents from the proceedings to the waiting press (as she had already done). Mr Allan’s injunction was discharged. In Norman v Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 49 Lewison LJ described that outcome and the meaning of ‘private’ (in the context of proceedings being reported) as follows:

 

[85] … The mere fact that proceedings are heard in private does not of itself prohibit publication of what happens in those proceedings: Clibbery v Allan [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261 at [17] and [51]. However, the fact that parties are required to make full and frank disclosure of financial information may justify reporting restrictions relating to that information: Clibbery v Allan at [73] and [79]. But there is no blanket ban: Clibbery v Allan at [83].

 

The Court of Appeal definition is the common law which applies to family as to all other types of proceedings. As ever, a rule cannot make, still less override, the law (Jaffray v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586), [2008] 1 WLR 75); and nothing was said of all this in the statute which empowers the rule-makers (Courts Act 2003 ss 75 and 76). Either on this basis or under exp Simms principles, the rule-makers – who are not Parliament – cannot override a common law principle. It may be worth adding that FPR 2010 are made by the negative resolution procedure (Courts Act 2003 s 79(6)) so they do not need formal approval by Parliament. Mostyn J’s comment in Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 1 – that ‘[14] …. Parliament when passing the rules specifically maintained [ancillary relief] proceedings as private, and denied members of the public admission to them’ must be read with s 79(6) in mind.

 

Even if the rule-makers do have a power to override the common law by r 27.10, the drafting of the rule is ambiguous. Rue 27.10 says the same as the Court of Appeal said in Hodgson as to what is the meaning of ‘chambers’; and that means something different from ‘secret’ proceedings. ‘Secret’ proceedings are those covered by the exceptions which run in a line from Scott, through AJA 1960 s 12(1) to the modern CPR 1998 r 39.2(3). Other proceedings under FPR 2010 which are not expressly open court (such as divorce and committal) are ‘private’. As Hodgson and Allan v Clibbery both say, they are ‘in chambers’ but, space permitting, the public may be admitted; save for those listed in s 12(1) which are ‘secret’.

 

Allegations of a ‘criminal nature’

 

For family proceedings, as for all others, perhaps the last word can go to Lord Atkinson in Scott (cited by Lord Sumption as a conclusion to the passage above):

 

[12] As Lord Atkinson observed in [Scott] at p 463, this may produce inconvenience and even injustice to individuals: ‘The hearing of a case in public may be, and often is, no doubt, painful, humiliating, or deterrent both to parties and witnesses, and in many cases, especially those of a criminal nature, the details may be so indecent as to tend to injure public morals, but all this is tolerated and endured, because it is felt that in public trial is to found, on the whole, the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means for winning for it public confidence and respect.’

 

And as to allegations ‘of a criminal nature’: it must be recalled that under Prison and Courts Bill cl 47 (which is the proposed statutory amendment with which this article begins) it is allegations which have been the subject of existing findings by a court – criminal or in injunction proceedings – which forms the basis of an application for advocacy assistance.

 

Surely there is no reason why cases where such allegations are being made should not be open to public scrutiny (if anyone is interested to attend)? After all, the origin of the Scott case was that Mrs Scott wanted her former husband’s family to understand the true nature of what she had alleged about him, and which the court had found, against him. The modern equivalent of Mrs Scott might be the physically abused woman.

 

Scott makes clear that the presumption is that all cases will be heard in open court. As Viscount Haldane states (see passage above): the burden is on anyone ‘seeking to displace [the presumption] in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded’. And then, he goes on, it is not a matter of judicial discretion was to whether an application for privacy is allowed but one of legal principle (see eg R v Legal Aid Board (exp Kiam Todner (a firm)) [1999] QB 966, [1998] 3 WLR 925, CA; Spencer v Spencer [2009] EWHC 1529 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 1416, Munby J). Just because the parties agree to exclude the press does not mean the court should go along with them.

Advertisements

…and a small voice in me wept for justice

Open justice principle and ECHR

The most recent addition to the Family Division bench McDonald J could be heard uttering – in H v A (No2) [2015] EWHC 2630 (Fam), McDonald J (17 September 2015) – the following (and, as I read it, a small voice in me wept for justice):

[26] Thus, outside the jurisdiction conferred by statute, the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction to control publication is derived from rights under the ECHR rather than the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and (italics added), accordingly, applications for orders restraining publication are determined by balancing the competing human rights engaged (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) at [23]). In the majority of cases concerning the publicity of family proceedings the competing rights to be balanced will include those enshrined in Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Art 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention. In some cases other rights will also fall to be placed in the balance.

McDonald J had just quoted this ‘succinct’ summary from a judgment of Sir James Munby P in on the subject of privacy in family proceedings in Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR 523 as follows:

[21] What may be called the ‘automatic restraints’ on the publication of information relating to proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are to be found in s 97 of that Act and s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Section 97 prohibits the publication of ‘material which is intended, or likely, to identify’ the child. But this prohibition comes to an end once the proceedings have been concluded: Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878. Section 12 does not protect the identity of anyone involved in the proceedings, not even the child… So, just as in the case of experts, there is no statutory protection for the identity of either a local authority or its social workers.

[22] The court has power both to relax and to add to the ‘automatic restraints’. In exercising this jurisdiction the court must conduct the ‘balancing exercise’ described in Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47… This necessitates what Lord Steyn in Re S, para [17], called ‘an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case’. There are, typically, a number of competing interests engaged, protected by Arts 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the European Convention)…. As Lord Steyn pointed out in Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication), para [25], it is ‘necessary to measure the nature of the impact … on the child’ of what is in prospect. Indeed, the interests of the child, although not paramount, must be a primary consideration, that is, they must be considered first though they can, of course, be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations: ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 para [33].

Common law and exceptions to the OJP

Look at the italicised passage above, again. According to Toulson LJ (in a passage not cited in either of the above two Family Division citations) the roots of the open justice principle (‘OJP’: and we are talking children law here, so it is exceptions to the OJP we are concerned with) are the common law, simple and pure:

[1] … Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse. Jeremy Bentham said in a well-known passage quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 477:

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.”

[2] This is a constitutional principle which has been recognised by the common law since the fall of the Stuart dynasty, as Lord Shaw explained. It is not only the individual judge who is open to scrutiny but the process of justice…

Though only three years old that passage has been approved at least three times in the Supreme Court: Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20, A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25 and Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] 1 AC 700. The common law roots of the principle can be seen from way before European Convention 1950 jurisprudence; and were stressed in such cases as Scott itself and Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440.

Toulson LJ concluded his judgment as follows:

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied.

[70] Broadly speaking, the requirements of open justice apply to all tribunals exercising the judicial power of the state. The fact that Magistrates Courts were created by an Act of Parliament is neither here nor there. So for that matter was the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court does not require statutory authority to determine how the principle of open justice should apply to its procedures.

He allowed the Guardian’s application to be permitted to read documents read by the district judge (magistrates’) before making her decision.

[88] I base my decision on the common law principle of open justice. In reaching it I am fortified by the common theme of the judgments in other common law countries to which I have referred. Collectively they are strong persuasive authority. The courts are used to citation of Strasbourg decisions in abundance, but citation of decisions of senior courts in other common law jurisdictions is now less common. I regret the imbalance. The development of the common law did not come to an end on the passing of the Human Rights Act. It is in vigorous health and flourishing in many parts of the world which share a common legal tradition. This case provides a good example of the benefit which can be gained from knowledge of the development of the common law elsewhere.

In Attorney-General v Leveller Lord Scarman stresses the common law point that it is for the judges in their inherent jurisdiction to determine exceptions to the rule, save where it is determined by statute (the point made by Munby P above). The child law jurisdiction has been treated, at common law (largely derived from wardship), as an exception; just as equity dictates that there should be an exception, if to publicise the subject matter of the dispute (eg patents) would destroy it; and national security can dictate privacy to proceedings (discussed fully in Leveller). These principles are noted in Administration of Justice Act 1960 and Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 39.2(3); but they are not defined by them – any more than they are by European Convention 1950 jurisprudence.

A common law root: does it matter?

This matters – as it matters in the difference of view between Holman J (Fields v Fields (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 1670 (Fam) (04 June 2015)) and Mostyn J in Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam) (28 September 2015). Reading Fields I would say Holman J has the hang of the problem. It is not just a question of publicising judgement. It is a question of the public being able to see what a ‘shambles’ – I quote from Re K-L (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 992 (12 August 2015) – the family courts can be.

Only when people really begin to understand, and start to make a fuss, will fairness begin to creep in to wear down some of the whackier decisions made in the Family Division and Family Court (and Mostyn J is one for the shakier concept of what is a fair procedure on occasion: anyone who wants chapter and verse on that is welcome to ask me).

So yes, McDonald J’s was plainly the correct decision; but I do urge him and all his brothers and sisters on the bench to be aware of the source of their powers. A simple and sound introduction is Scott tempered by Scarman (especially) in Leveller. (He cites a nice case of a ward whose details were publicised – Re F (orse A) (a Minor) (Publication of Information) [1977] Fam 58, [1976] 3 WLR 813, CA including Scarman LJ – and William Deedes of the Daily Telegraph (orse ‘Dear Bill’) was not sent to prison, nor even was he in contempt. Nicholas Wilson (now Lord Wilson etc) was in it, being led by Waite QC (later LJ).

Re F is a live piece of law, though rarely cited, on the issue of whether Administration of Justice Act 1960 created new law, or declared the old. In effect the Court of Appeal held it declared the old; and that remains the case today; which brings this note full circle.

I would say, respectfully, that McDonald J should have said:

[26] …outside the jurisdiction conferred by statute, the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction to control publication is derived from rights defined by the common law, rather than under ECHR…

…. But then, who am I to say?

MOSTYN J AND THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE

A judicial view on open justice and ancillary relief proceedings

In DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam), dated 27 July 2015, Mostyn J delivered himself of his opinion on ‘the law (emphasis added) concerning the presence of the media in these private proceedings, which is contained in FPR 2010 r 27.11 and PD27B’. ‘The law’ is framed, says the judge, ‘to enable the press to be the eyes and ears of the public so as to ensure that the case is conducted fairly and to enable the public to be educated in an abstract and general way about the processes that are deployed, but does not extend to breaching the privacy of the parties in these proceedings that Parliament has given to them’.

This is the premise on which Mostyn J’s view is based. DL v SL is not, properly so-called, a ‘judgment’ (as it is described: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2621.html). As far as I can see it decides no issue upon which the judge was asked to adjudicate.

Of rights and the open justice principle

Three features of English law are not touched upon by Mostyn J:

  • The rule in Jaffray (Jaffray v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586) – said by the Court of Appeal to be ‘trite law’ (at [6]-[7]): that rules cannot make or change the law. As will be explained it therefore follows that a rule, still less a practice direction, cannot change the common law.
  • The open justice principle – the open justice principle (OJP) is a common law construct (as explained by Toulson LJ in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 WLR 1343; approved by, amongst other Supreme Court cases, Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20: the common law and the variety of House of Lords/Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases which explain it, was not referred to.
  • Fundamental rights: only be changed by express language or necessary implication – as Lord Hoffman explained in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Simms R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp O’Brien  [1999] UKHL 33; [2000] 2 AC 115:

In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document

A private court categorisation for ancillary relief proceedings

Mostyn J seeks to create the ancillary relief categorisation of private proceedings (see §[##] below). He does so by his take on JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 96. In that case, a strong Court of Appeal (More-Bick, Black and Levison LJJ, including a prominent child lawyer in Black LJ) held that in the restricted circumstances of child settlement approval anonymity might be appropriate; but – as ever – on the basis that the hearing is public.

Mostyn J mentions the case, but not its conclusion, namely:

[33] An important aspect of justice is consistency. The question for decision in each case is whether a derogation from the principle of open justice is necessary in order to ensure that justice itself is done. At one level that must depend on the facts of the individual case, but it is important to ensure a reasonable measure of consistency in order prevent the administration of justice being brought into disrepute. This is an area in which fine distinctions are difficult to justify and not easily understood. Proceedings of this kind are sadly not uncommon and some or all of the issues to which this appeal gives rise regularly confront judges dealing with such applications. It appears that applications for anonymity orders are becoming more frequent and, according to the very experienced judge who dealt with the matter below, there is uncertainty among judges about the course that should be taken. In those circumstances we think it appropriate for us to provide some guidance for judges at first instance.

[34] In our view the court should recognise that when dealing with an approval application of the kind now under consideration it is dealing with what is essentially private business, albeit in open court, and should normally make an anonymity order in favour of the claimant without the need for any formal application, unless for some reason it is satisfied that it is unnecessary or inappropriate to do so. Such an order should be drawn in terms that prohibit publication of the name and address of the claimant and his or her immediate family and also (if not already covered) the name of his or her litigation friend. The court must also recognise, however, that the public and the Press have a legitimate interest both in observing the proceedings and making and receiving a report of them. Accordingly, the Press should be given an opportunity to make submissions before any order is made restricting publication of a report of the proceedings, but for obvious reasons it will be unnecessary to notify the Press formally that an application for an anonymity order will be made. If the Press or any other party wishes to contend that an anonymity order should not be made, it will normally be necessary for it to file and serve on the claimant a statement setting out the nature of its case.

[35] With that in mind we suggest that the following principles should apply:

(i) the hearing should be listed for hearing in public under the name in which the proceedings were issued, unless by the time of the hearing an anonymity order has already been made;

(ii) because the hearing will be held in open court the Press and members of the public will have a right to be present and to observe the proceedings;

(iii) the Press will be free to report the proceedings, subject only to any order made by the judge restricting publication of the name and address of the claimant, his or her litigation friend (and, if different, the names and addresses of his or her parents) and restricting access by non-parties to documents in the court record other than those which have been anonymised (an “anonymity order”);

(iv) the judge should invite submissions from the parties and the Press before making an anonymity order;

(v) unless satisfied after hearing argument that it is not necessary to do so, the judge should make an anonymity order for the protection of the claimant and his or her family;

(vi) if the judge concludes that it is unnecessary to make an anonymity order, he should give a short judgment setting out his reasons for coming to that conclusion;

(vii) the judge should normally give a brief judgment on the application (taking into account any anonymity order) explaining the circumstances giving rise to the claim and the reasons for his decision to grant or withhold approval and should make a copy available to the Press on request as soon as possible after the hearing.

A Court of Appeal decision like this – it was a judgment of the court – is a world away from Mostyn J’s opinionated attempts to fashion a legal system according to his reasoning, truly it is.

Order for preserving privacy: gagging order

Mostyn J went on, citing himself and others (though he does not extend the normal courtesy of reproducing his reference for all of us to read (an attempt to improve sales, perhaps?)):

[2] Accordingly, for the reasons that are set out in the book Financial Remedies Practice (Class Publishing, 2015 Edition) of which I, together with Sir Peter Singer, Lewis Marks QC and Gavin Smith are the authors, at paras 27.38 – 27.63, it is appropriate for me to make an order which preserves the privacy of the parties. Accordingly, I make an order in the following terms:

“The Media is prohibited from publishing any report of this case that –

(1) Identifies by name or location any person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them; or

(2) Refers to or concerns any of the parties’ financial information whether of a personal or business nature including, but not limited to, that contained in their voluntary disclosure, answers to questionnaire provided in solicitors’ correspondence, in their witness statements, in their oral evidence or referred to in submissions made on their behalf, whether in writing or orally, save to the extent that any such information is already in the public domain.”

[3] The preceding paragraphs are the reasons given by me orally on 27 July 2015, with imperfections corrected by me. However, I made it clear at the time, particularly to the representative of the media who made two short submissions in manuscript to me seeking that the order for anonymity be lifted, that I would take the opportunity of expanding my reasons when the draft transcript of judgment was received from the transcribers. This I now do.

He goes on to cite Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 2314 (Fam), Roberts J; but not – perhaps unsurprisingly – my review of the case and OJP issues in August 2014 in Family Law News at http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/reporting-restrictions-in-financial-remedy-proceedings-a-review-after-case-management-in-cooper-hohn-v-hohn#.VgEtFN-qqko.

In that article I suggested that I was attempting –

… to provide a guide through the ‘rocky terrain’ [a quote of Mostyn J himself, from Roberts J]– limited to financial remedy proceedings – for what ultimately is a matter of judicial discretion based on the common law and a European Convention 1950 proportionality balance. It involves a separation of family proceedings into: (1) those governed solely by the common law (civil proceedings and a minority of family proceedings); (2) financial remedy proceedings; and (3) proceedings governed by Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12(1) (‘AJA 1960’: children proceedings: their welfare, maintenance and upbringing). Most aspects of (2) are subsumed in principles derived from (1); and children issues under AJA 1960, s 12(1) are likely to be rare in financial remedy proceedings.

Common law or ‘sentiments’

Mostyn J warms to his theme; but perhaps confuses law with ‘sentiments’ (his word: see below):

[5] The principle of open justice has deep roots. Lord Bingham, writing in The Rule of Law (Allen Lane, 2010, p8), stated that at the heart of the concept of the rule of law is the principle that laws should be publicly made and publicly administered in the courts [Mostyn J’s emphasis].  He was reflecting Jeremy Bentham’s famous aphorism that “publicity is the very soul of justice” (Works, Vol 4, 1843). Bentham was seeking to answer Juvenal’s famous question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The reason why justice should be administered openly was that “it is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial”. By virtue of publicity the corrupt judge would find himself condemned in “the court of public opinion”. In this way “justice becomes the mother of security”. These sentiments were strongly endorsed by the House of Lords in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417. In more recent times Lord Widgery CJ said much the same thing in R v Socialist Workers Printers ex parte Attorney General [1975] QB 637, as did Lord Diplock in Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280 at 303 and Lord Steyn in Re S (a child)(Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47 [2005] 1 AC 593 at para 30 (“the glare of contemporaneous publicity ensures that trials are properly conducted”). When Bentham was writing in 1843 there was, however, neither a developed appeal system (with published judgments) nor a regulated system of adjudicating complaints about judicial misconduct (the results of which are published in perpetuity on the internet). It might be thought that these developments have supplied an equally sure guard against improbity and an equally keen spur to exertion.

Mostyn J cites selectively: it is as if he is mounting an argument for a client, not giving a balanced judicial assessment. Thus, as Toulson LJ said in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 WLR 1343 (of release of documents used by the court) the minority in Harman ultimately carried the day as the law was later changed (see CPR 1998 r 31.22):

[33] Lord Scarman, a thinker ahead of his time, said in Harman v Home Office [1983] 1 AC 280, 316:

“Reasonable expedition is, of course, a duty of the judge. But he is also concerned to ensure that justice not only is done but is seen to be done in his court. And this is the fundamental reason for the rule of the common law, recognised by this House in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, that trials are to be conducted in public. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline referred with approval, at p 477, to the view of Jeremy Bentham that public trial is needed as a spur to judicial virtue. Whether or not judicial virtue needs such a spur, there is also another important public interest involved in justice done openly, namely, that the evidence and argument should be publicly known, so that society may judge for itself the quality of justice administered in its name, and whether the law requires modification. When public policy in the administration of justice is considered, public knowledge of the evidence and arguments of the parties is certainly as important as expedition: and, if the price of expedition is to be the silent reading by the judge before or at trial of relevant documents, it is arguable that expedition will not always be consistent with justice being seen to be done.

…Justice is done in public so that it may be discussed and criticised in public. Moreover, trials will sometimes expose matters of public interest worthy of discussion other than the judicial task of doing justice between the parties in the particular case.”

[34] Lord Bingham CJ took matters further in SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] 4 All ER 498, 511-512:

“Since the date when Lord Scarman expressed doubt in Home Office v Harman as to whether expedition would always be consistent with open justice, the practices of counsel preparing skeleton arguments, chronologies and reading guides, and judges pre-reading documents (including witness statements) out of court, have become much more common. These methods of saving time in court are now not merely permitted, but are positively required, by practice directions. The result is that a case may be heard in such a way that even an intelligent and well-informed member of the public, present throughout every hearing in open court, would be unable to obtain a full understanding of the documentary evidence and the arguments on which the case was to be decided.

In such circumstances there may be some degree of unreality in the proposition that the material documents in the case have (in practice as well as in theory) passed into the public domain. That is a matter which gives rise to concern…

As the court’s practice develops it will be necessary to give appropriate weight to both efficiency and openness of justice, with Lord Scarman’s warning in mind. Public access to documents referred to in open court (but not in fact read aloud and comprehensively in open court) may be necessary, with suitable safeguards, to avoid too wide a gap between what has in theory, and what has in practice, passed into the public domain.”

‘Publicity of proceedings is not an absolute principle’

I regret to say that in the next sentence – the first of §[8] – Mostyn J shows the poverty of his grasp of the common law. A skim read of  http://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/reporting-restrictions-in-financial-remedy-proceedings-a-review-after-case-management-in-cooper-hohn-v-hohn#.VgEtFN-qqko or of my ICLR blog at  ‘“To be heard in the dining hall…”: Scott 100 years on’ http://www.iclr.co.uk/to-be-heard-in-the-dining-hall-scott-100-years-on/ (and of some of the House of Lords and Supreme Court cases there cited: Mostyn J does not refer to them); or indeed of the seminal trio of (say) Scott, Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 and ota Guardian News will show – alongside European Convention 1950 Art 6(1) – how solipsistic is Mostyn J’s argument:

[8] But publicity of proceedings is not an absolute principle. Surely no-one would suggest that an adoption proceeding, which is heard completely privately, is by virtue of that privacy alone robbed of justice. Or that a civil arbitration, again heard in private, was an unjust process. There are some processes which by virtue of their subject matter should be heard in private. When Bentham wrote over 170 years ago adoption did not exist and I suppose that just about the only matter then justifying secrecy would have been national security.

The majority of the House of Lords cases on the open justice principle, from Scott onwards, stress the exceptional nature of children and adoption proceedings (see italicised passage in A v BBC at §[29] below).

The modern common law may be said to be most succinctly summarised by Lord Hodge in A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25 (another case not expressly considered by Mostyn J; and where a principled exception to the OJP was allowed, as explained by the Supreme Court):

[29] Exceptions to the principle of open justice were considered in the well-known case of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, in which the House of Lords emphasised in the strongest terms the importance of the general principle, but also recognised that there were circumstances in which it was necessary to depart from it. Viscount Haldane LC gave the example at p 437 of a court exercising a wardship jurisdiction: such a court was sitting primarily to guard the interests of the ward, and the attainment of that object might require that the public should be excluded. Lunacy proceedings were in a similar position. Another example given by the Lord Chancellor, of greater relevance to the present case, was litigation concerning a secret process, “where the effect of publicity would be to destroy the subject-matter”. The Earl of Halsbury considered wardship and lunacy to fall outside the scope of the general principle that justice should be administered in public, but accepted that proceedings concerning trade secrets, or to prevent the publication of private correspondence, were exceptions to that principle, observing at p 443 that “it would be the height of absurdity as well as of injustice to allow a trial at law to protect either to be made the instrument of destroying the very thing it was intended to protect”. Similar observations were made by Lord Atkinson at p 450 and by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline at pp 482-483. All of their Lordships stressed the need for a compelling justification for any departure from the principle of open justice. The Lord Chancellor said at pp 437-438:

As the paramount object must always be to do justice, the general rule as to publicity, after all only the means to an end, must accordingly yield. But the burden lies on those seeking to displace its application in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration. The question is by no means one which, consistently with the spirit of our jurisprudence, can be dealt with by the judge as resting in his mere discretion as to what is expedient. The latter must treat it as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity.

[30] A similar approach was followed in later cases in the House of Lords. In particular, the issue was considered in detail in the cases of In re K (Infants) [1965] AC 201 and Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440. In the former case, Lord Devlin noted at p 238 that the ordinary principles of a judicial inquiry included the rules that justice should be done openly, that it should be done only after a fair hearing, and that judgment should be given only upon evidence that is made known to all parties, and also rules of a less fundamental character, such as the rule against hearsay. He continued:

But a principle of judicial inquiry, whether fundamental or not, is only a means to an end. If it can be shown in any particular class of case that the observance of a principle of this sort does not serve the ends of justice, it must be dismissed; otherwise it would become the master instead of the servant of justice. Obviously, the ordinary principles of judicial inquiry are requirements for all ordinary cases and it can only be in an extraordinary class of case that any one of them can be discarded. This is what was so clearly decided in Scott v Scott.”

After citing the dictum of Viscount Haldane which I also have cited, Lord Devlin continued at p 239:

That test is not easy to pass. It is not enough to show that dispensation would be convenient. It must be shown that it is a matter of necessity in order to avoid the subordination of the ends of justice to the means.”

[31] More recently still, the importance of the common law principle of open justice was emphasised by nine Justices of this court in the case of Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury [2013] UKSC 38;[2013] 3 WLR 179. Lord Neuberger, giving the judgment of the majority, described the principle as fundamental to the dispensation of justice in a modern, democratic society (para 2). He added that it had long been accepted that, in rare cases, a court had an inherent power to receive evidence and argument in a hearing from which the public and the press were excluded, but said that such a course might only be taken (i) if it was strictly necessary to have a private hearing in order to achieve justice between the parties, and (ii) if the degree of privacy was kept to an absolute minimum. He gave, as examples of such cases, litigation where children were involved, where threatened breaches of privacy were being alleged, and where commercially valuable secret information was in issue.

[32] It has also been recognised in the English case law, consistently with Lord Neuberger’s requirement of the degree of privacy being kept to a minimum, that where the interests of justice require some qualification of the principle of open justice, it may not be necessary to exclude the public or the press from the hearing: it may suffice that particular information is withheld. In Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd, for example, Lord Diplock accepted at p 451 that, where the court might sit in camera in order to preserve the anonymity of a witness in the interests of national security, it could instead allow “a much less drastic derogation from the principle of open justice”, namely that the witness should give evidence in public but should be permitted to withhold his name from the public and the press. Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Edmund-Davies agreed that the court could do so, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to control its own procedure: pp 458 and 464 respectively. Viscount Dilhorne gave as an example the practice of allowing a witness complaining of blackmail to withhold his identity from public disclosure in court, judicially approved in R v Socialist Worker Printers and Publishers Ltd, Ex p Attorney General [1975] QB 637. The proposition that the court had no power to allow a witness’s name to be withheld from the public had been roundly rejected in that case: such a direction, it was held, was clearly preferable to an order for trial in camera where “the entire supervision by the public is gone” (p 652).

Categories of court business

Mostyn J seeks to create new law, in a ‘judgement’ which has no ratio. There was no issue tried (§[3] … I made it clear [on 27 July 2015], particularly to the representative of the media who made two short submissions in manuscript to me seeking that the order for anonymity be lifted….’, is the nearest one gets to an issue to be tried.)

He precedes this by a brief reference to the balancing test required by Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593; but he then seems to be saying that this ‘ultimate test’ is not necessary here – ie again, he tells us, he at least is entitled to ignore the House of Lords and Supreme Court. He decrees that ancillary relief proceedings are:

[10] … so personal and private that in almost every case where anonymisation is sought the right to privacy will trump the right to unfettered freedom of expression. These cases are those where the subject matter of the proceedings can rightly be categorised as “private business”. In a case of private business where the media are present (either by virtue of rules of court or a specific court order permitting that) an order for anonymisation will generally be made, if sought: see Independent News and Media Ltd and others v A (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) [2010] EWCA Civ 343[2010] 2 FLR 1290. Exceptions to this general rule are where the facts demonstrate disgraceful conduct: see Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315, [2011] 1 FLR 1427, or where they are so striking that anonymisation is in effect impossible: see, for example, McCartney v McCartney [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam) [2008] 1 FLR 1508. This principle, preserving privacy where the subject matter of the proceedings is private business, will be applied even where the rules provide for the hearing of the case in public: see JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 96, which concerned the approval of a personal injury settlement in favour of a minor, at paras 17, 29 and 35.

The judge’s insouciance is almost breath-taking. The conclusion to JX MX is cited earlier in this article. JX MX did not ‘preserve privacy’. It preserved only anonymity. The court stressed that the hearing remained in open court (see italicised passage in §[34] from JX MX (above)).

‘Protected by the anonymity principle’

Ancillary relief proceedings are ‘protected by the anonymity principle’: what anonymity principle? Mostyn J has made it up. A judge – it is trite law – cannot extend the common law save as part of a decision-making process: ie where a case is argued. And then the judicial reasoning – rather special pleading (added numbers as [7] are dealt with in the text below):

[11] Ancillary relief (or financial remedy) proceedings are quintessentially private business, and are therefore protected by the anonymity principle set out above. That they are so protected is to be deduced from a number of sources. First, and most obviously, [1] Parliament has in FPR 27.10 specifically provided that the proceedings shall be heard in private. The fact that the media may attend the hearing pursuant to FPR 27.11 and PD27B does not alter the fact that the hearing is in private. Second, the process involves the extraction of highly personal and private information under compulsion which the recipient may not use save for the purposes of the proceedings: see [2] Clibbery v Allen (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 45[2002] 1 FLR 565, and Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo. Therefore, according to those authorities, the media may not report any such information without leave. Third, Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the UK ratified in 1976, stipulates that (a) the press or public can be excluded from all or part of the trial when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires; and (b) that judgment is not required to be public where the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes. In my judgment [3] Article 14 creates a presumption against public judgment in matrimonial disputes, and therefore it logically follows that the proceedings should not be public either as otherwise the privacy of the judgment would be fatally undermined. It is trite law that when exercising a power a court should do so consistently with the state’s international obligations. Fourth, it is my firm opinion that the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 applies not merely to the suit for divorce itself but also to the proceedings for ancillary relief. At the time it was passed ancillary relief was an intrinsic part of the divorce itself. Since it has been passed it has been extended to cover proceedings for maintenance under section 27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and its civil partnership equivalent: see section 2 of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968. It would be bizarre if it applied to the now nearly obsolete form of maintenance proceedings that is section 27 of the 1973 Act but not to mainstream ancillary relief proceedings. [4] In Clibbery v Allen [2001] 2 FLR 819 Munby J (as he then was) held that the 1926 Act applied to ancillary relief (now financial remedy) proceedings. In the Court of Appeal the President thought he may well be right, although Thorpe LJ had his doubts. Since then the judges have skirted around the issue: see, for example, Rapisarda v Colladon [2014] EWFC 1406 at [31] to [35] where the President left open the question whether the 1926 Act applied to financial remedy proceedings. He described this uncertainty as a ‘truly a disturbing state of affairs’. He suggested that the 1926 Act ought to be repealed. With respect, I do not agree. The Act recognises and protects the private nature of divorce proceedings. It was amended by section 2 of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 (as noted above); by section 66(1) of, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to, the Family Law Act 1996; by section 280(2) and (3) of, and paragraph 7 of Schedule 26 to, the Criminal Justice Act 2003; and by section 261(1) of, and paragraph 8(1) and (2) of Schedule 27 to, the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and on each occasion Parliament must be taken to have endorsed its policy.

This passage, §[11], may be said to be the central passage of this part of Mostyn J’s view, yet in truth, it descends almost into farce:

  • ‘Parliament has in FPR 27.10 specifically provided that the proceedings shall be heard in private’ – no it hasn’t (said in tones of Monty Python’s Flying Circus). Family Procedure Rules Committee has made rules, supposedly under powers delegated by Courts Act 2003 ss 75 and 76. The rules are ‘made’ by Parliament but subject only to the negative resolution procedure.

 

  • Of Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261, [2002] 1 FLR 565, in the Court of Appeal: the case held precisely the opposite of what Mostyn J seems to be saying. In my ‘Open justice: the common law and exceptions to the principle: Part 1: Open justice and the common law’[2015] Family Law (forthcoming in October 2015) I explain this as follows:

The open court question and ‘private’ were considered in Allan v Clibbery  under Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (see eg paras [50] and [124]) but ‘private’ is not used in the same way in the later FPR 2010, r 27.10 as it was in that case. FPR 2010, r 27.10(2) says: ‘(2) For the purposes of these rules, a reference to proceedings held ‘in private’ means proceedings at which the general public have no right to be present’. In Allan v Clibbery, Dame Elizabeth defines ‘private’ as to exclude the public but not to have ‘the consequence of a ban on later publication’ (para [17]). Having considered the various applicable words – ‘private’, ‘chambers’, ‘in camera’ – she concluded:

‘[19] … I am driven to recall Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word ‑ it means just what I choose it to mean ‑ neither more nor less.”

‘[20] I would therefore suggest that there are three categories of case, those heard in open court, those heard in private and those heard in secret where the information disclosed to the court and the proceedings remain confidential.

Originally Mr Allan had been granted an injunction restraining Miss Clibbery from publishing via the Daily Mirror. That was discharged by Munby J, but retained pending appeal. The President, with whom the other two LJJ agreed in her conclusion, discharged the injunction:

[83] In the present appeal, the Court has no information at all about the evidence which was adduced at the hearing in the county court, other than that reported in the newspapers. There is a blanket objection by the appellant to publication, based on the general premise that the case was heard in chambers and consequently must remain secret. On the information available to this Court and to Munby J. it was an issue of jurisdiction…. This appeal has to be decided on what the Court knows. Applying the principles which I have set out above, I can see no ground upon which, on the present facts, there cannot be publication of the proceedings. Although I consider, for the reasons set out above that he has expressed his general propositions too widely, I agree with the conclusions of Munby J. on the facts of the appeal

 

  • In my judgment – Mostyn J was not giving a judgment. His words are merely another comment from another lawyer; and on this evidence one with a shakey grasp of his subject.

 

  • Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 – this, I fear, is sophistry. The 1926 Act deals with publication, not with attendance at court, just as does Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12(1). Mostyn J was dealing with exclusion from court, which is not the 1926 Act’s concern

Categorisation of ancillary relief proceedings

The categorisation issue is dealt with by Mostyn J thus:

[12] These considerations point powerfully to the categorisation of ancillary relief proceedings as private business entitling to the parties to anonymity as well as to preservation of the confidentiality of their financial affairs. Even if the rules provided for ancillary relief proceedings to be heard in public the parties would, in my judgment, be entitled to anonymity and preservation of the confidentiality of their financial affairs.

Mostyn J concluded the opposite in family proceedings under CPR 1998 (ie Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 proceedings:  ). Here he correctly cited CPR 1998 r 39.2 which provides as follows:

39.2 General rule – hearing to be in public

(1) The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public.

(2) The requirement for a hearing to be in public does not require the court to make special arrangements for accommodating members of the public.

(3) A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if –

(a) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing;

(b) it involves matters relating to national security;

(c) it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality;

(d) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party;

(e) it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing;

(f) it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or

(g) the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice.

(4) The court may order that the identity of any party or witness must not be disclosed if it considers non-disclosure necessary in order to protect the interests of that party or witness.

This may well represent a codification (in Lord Diplock’s words) of the common law. If so it applies to family proceedings (and on a principled basis Mostyn J could simply have said – after a proper evaluation of Human Rights Act 1998 s 12 (rights of the press) – that r 39.2(3)(c) applied).

FPR 2010 rr 27.10 and 27.11 on the evidence of r 39.2 and the common law, and on the basis of what the Court of Appeal held in Allan v Clibbery, are ultra vires the rule-makers.

Conclusion

Not allowing himself to be burdened by an application of the common law, or of Supreme Court authority which contradicted him, said Mostyn J in conclusion:

[17] In this case (the details of which are unremarkable and which are briefly discussed below) I was entirely satisfied that the general rule of anonymity and privacy should be respected and I therefore made the orders referred to above. The order itself is attached to this judgment at Annex A…. [and see his summary in his §[2] above].

David Burrows

22 September 2015

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND FAMILY LAW: REFORM, REPEAL OR REPLACE

Convention law: a safety net

Human Rights Act 1998 and its incorporation of most of European Convention 1950 into English law has become a fundamental aspect of the English and Scottish constitutional framework; and it was often taken into account by judges long before its formal incorporation into British law in October 2000 (see eg Bingham LJ in W v Egdell (below)). However it must be recalled that it is mostly as a safety net that the 1998 Act and the Convention operate. That is part of its fundamental importance. The principle on which an effective welfare benefits system operates – as the post-War Beveridgeian system was intended to operate – is, as much as anything, as a safety net for those not provided for otherwise financially. So it is with the English statute and common law: that where these falter the Convention may plug the gap.

Toulson LJ (now Lord Toulson) explained the other side of this coin in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618:

[88] I base my decision on the common law principle of open justice. In reaching it I am fortified by the common theme of the judgments in other common law countries to which I have referred. Collectively they are strong persuasive authority. The courts are used to citation of Strasbourg decisions in abundance, but citation of decisions of senior courts in other common law jurisdictions is now less common. I regret the imbalance. The development of the common law did not come to an end on the passing of the Human Rights Act. It is in vigorous health and flourishing in many parts of the world which share a common legal tradition. This case provides a good example of the benefit which can be gained from knowledge of the development of the common law elsewhere.

Toulson LJ did not say this to devalue the 1998 Act and Convention; but sought only to point out that many important decisions can be made by British courts by reference only to statute and common law, and without reference to European jurisprudence.

Speaking – as I do – as a family lawyer (I dare not call myself a ‘constitutional lawyer’ as this series demands) I believe the Human Rights Act 1998 has done three things, all of which may survive within the common law and judicial thinking for many decades; though the points made here may apply in many – or most – areas of law:

  • It has sharpened up our understanding of legal concepts we had always used, but which the Convention made us rethink
  • It has made judges and lawyers balance the principles applicable and summarised in the Articles; known in Convention terms as ‘proportionality’
  • It has made us all, perhaps family lawyers especially, re-think aspects of the laws of confidentiality and privacy

Understanding legal concepts

Most English lawyers, including family lawyers, would have assumed that anyone who came before an English court in the twentieth century received a fair trial; and most family lawyers in the 1990s would have accounted the husband in Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698 as one of the more extreme rogues to have been dealt with in the family courts. As luck would have it (together with Mr Mubarak’s ability to fund an appeal, one might say) it fell to his case for the Court of Appeal to review the fairness of the rules made under Debtors Act 1869 s 5 (still in operation in the civil courts) for committal to prison for a debt ordered to be paid by a civil court. In 2000 (when Mubarak was heard) Civil Procedure Rules 1998 had recently been amended to apply, in civil (but not family) proceedings, the rule that a defendant should not be required to provide evidence against himself. The then family proceedings rules had not been so amended. As the 1998 Act was coming into force and Art 6(3) of the Convention coming to be applied to English court proceedings, the state of English family proceedings rules lead Brooke LJ to comment as follows:

[45] The Human Rights Act 1998 has now been in force for just over 2 months, and it is already clear that the introduction of a code setting out modern international standards of fairness is doing work of considerable value in shining light into some of the dustier corners of our law. The experience of this case shows, at any rate to my satisfaction, that corners do not get much dustier than those inhabited by s 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 and the prescribed procedures under that Act.

Family proceedings rules were amended – in the form now to be found in Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 33 – to reverse the burden of proof as fairness required and which a review under convention terms had prompted.

Proportionality: ‘ultimate balancing’

Many judicial decisions – regardless of operation of European Convention 1950 principles – involve, and have always involved, the judicial balancing of conflicting principles. Convention principles do not change that. It has, however, helped to bring the exercise into sharper focus.

Lord Steyn explained the operation of the Convention balancing test in a criminal and family case (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593 at [17]): should the right of the press to publicise information about mother’s trial override the right of her child to privacy:

[17] The interplay between articles 8 and 10 has been illuminated by the opinions in the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232. For present purposes the decision of the House on the facts of Campbell and the differences between the majority and the minority are not material. What does, however, emerge clearly from the opinions are four propositions. First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test.

These principles in relation to proportionality balance can be seen being developed in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, [2011] 2 AC 166

and H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (Official Solicitor intervening) [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338. In Lifely v Lifely [2008] EWCA Civ 904 (a chancery proceedings appeal between two brothers, who were at issue over what had been agreed between them and their father during his life) Ward LJ said of the balance to be struck between privacy and a fair trial to be applied after Re S:

[35] The Campbell case also involved the balancing of Miss Campbell’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 and the right of freedom of expression that is enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention. Lord Hope spoke in paragraph 85 of his speech of the need for the court “to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure.” For Article 10 in that case, read Article 6 in this [Lifely] case.

[36] In Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [(above)] Lord Steyn spoke in paragraph 17 of the “ultimate balancing test” [as above]:…

[37] In my judgment the result of undertaking this balancing exercise is plain. Here there was no trespass or burglary. The diary was left on Andrew’s property and had been there for many years. Though he can, perhaps, be criticised for reading a private diary, his conduct,… was not so outrageous. If Nicholas had disclosed the existence of his diary, as strictly he ought to have done, then this information would have emerged at the trial. It was not privileged and no claim to confidentiality could then have prevailed.

Confidentiality and privacy

Ten years before Human Rights Act 1998 (in November 1989) Bingham LJ concluded his judgment in W v Egdell [1990] Ch 359, [1990] 2 WLR 471 (an important case in the context of when confidentiality and advice privilege may be breached) by stressing the significance of European Convention 1950:

No reference was made in argument before us (nor, so far as I know, before the judge J to the European Convention of Human Rights, but I believe this decision to be in accordance with it. I would accept that Article 8(1) of the Convention may protect an individual against the disclosure of information protected by the duty of professional secrecy. But Article 8(2) envisages that circumstances may arise in which a public authority may legitimately interfere with exercise of that right in accordance with the law and where necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety or the prevention of crime. Here there was no interference by a public authority. Dr. Egdell did, as I conclude, act in accordance with the law. And his conduct was in my judgment necessary in the interests of public safety and the prevention of crime.

This case, alongside the Guardian News and Media and Campbell cases (cited here) are concerned with aspects of confidentiality and privilege and with privacy. The application of Art 8 (right to respect for family life) is an area where it can be said that the common law has emphatically been developed since the Convention was more closely applied to English law (as explained in Campbell; and see Confidentiality (3rd Ed) Toulson and Phipps (2012, Sweet & Maxwell, especially 7-017 etseq).

That said, rules in relation to privilege have been known to and developed by the common law at least since the sixteenth century (as explained in R v Derby Magistrates’ Court exp B [1995] UKHL 18, [1996] 1 AC 487, [1996] 1 FLR 513). This will not go if Human Rights Act 1998 is repealed.

Conclusion: the lessons of European Convention 1950

Privacy and the law of confidentiality is an important aspect of family law and needs to be tended carefully. This and so much else would be much better developed within the common law but under the oversight of European Convention 1950 principles. The family law will always want to recall the lessons of Mubarak and the balancing test in Re S. These lessons will remain; but how many other lessons, as yet unlearned, will be lost if the prominence of the Convention is lost to English and Scottish law? How many of Brooke LJ ‘dusty corners’ will remain unswept if an overarching jurisprudence, such as that provided by the Convention  is not regularly applied? To close the legal mind or any body of law to any legal development is a retrograde step. Like John Donne’s continent: any that is washed away ‘diminishes’ the whole.

A SIMPLE LAW FOR PRIVACY IN CHILDREN CASES

Where open justice is trumped by children privacy

JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 96 should be required reading for every court dealing with children proceedings; and many other forms of family proceedings as well. In 36 unhurried paragraphs it explains the common law on when the open justice principle can be overridden (Roberts J took 177 paragraphs to do the same thing in Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 2314 (Fam), Roberts J). The same common law and (as applicable) statute law which applies to all civil proceedings (though family proceedings rule-makers have introduced rules which impede the simple common law principles in a way which gives every impression of illegality: FPR 2010 r 29.10 and 29.11; and see https://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/why-family-law-gets-privacy-wrong-response-to-transparency-consultation/ – my response to Sir James Munby P’s July consultation paper on what he calls ‘transparency’).

The background is that JXMX sustained severe birth injuries and sued the Trust responsible. She will always be a protected party, with people looking after her and her interests. Her claim was settled for a significant sum. The settlement went before Tugendhat J for approval, a hearing which is in open court. Her advisers asked for an anonymity order; and, for example, her mother had said that she was concerned that people might start looking to her for payments if the large sum awarded to her daughter was reported in the press. She was concerned about her and her daughter’s loss of privacy.

The judge was unconvinced. All of her daughter’s affairs would be looked after by a professional Deputy, and, he said, the mother’s fears were not objectively well founded.

The appeal

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment of the court, set out clear statements of principle in favour of open justice from cases such as Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, and A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25. They referred to the summary of the common law position (now codified, largely, in CPR 1998 r 39.2). Children law, said Lord Reed in A, recognised that there may be many different cases in which the court must have regard to the need to do justice in a wider sense than merely reaching a just determination of the issue between the immediate parties. So, said the Court of Appeal, interests contrary to open justice may arise:

[14] Proceedings involving children and vulnerable adults will often call for a measure of privacy, not necessarily because of the inherent nature of the issues to which they give rise, but because such persons may suffer a distinct injustice if they are exposed to the publicity that may be generated if the proceedings are held in public. Moreover, a claimant who is, or will in due course grow up to be, a protected party may need protection from those who would seek to gain access to the funds that are intended to provide compensation for the injuries in respect of which they were awarded.

Family proceedings

One can entirely understand that those involved in any proceedings on family breakdown would want privacy; but why should they start (as FPR 2010 r 27.10 suggests they are entitled to do) in any different position than any other litigant Or as Jeremy Bentham would say, why should family courts judges be any less on trial than any other judge?

The correct approach on privacy, as ever, is to put the law first; and the law here is the common law ‘open justice principle’ (per Toulson LJ in Guardian Newspapers above; or as explained in MX); unless that openness should be restricted by order of the court (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593) or by statutory intervention – eg by contempt proceedings. As Lord Scarman explained in Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 at 469:

No one shall be punished for publishing….information unless it can be established to the satisfaction of the court to whom the application is made that the publication constitutes an interference with the administration of justice either in the particular case to which the publication relates or generally. Parliament clearly had the general rule in mind when in 1960 it enacted that even the publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court save in specified exceptional cases: section 12 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960….

The common law starts from the premise that anyone subject to it can do what they want, unless lawfully prohibited (hence the negative – ‘thou shalt not’ – approach of much parliamentary drafting (eg Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12(1)). The default position in any civil proceedings is open justice. Exceptions – and there are sure to be many in family proceedings; and for protected parties generally – must be statutorily provided for or ordered by the court on a principled basis. That does not include in delegated legislation, especially legislation for which there are no obvious vires.

Many of the applicable ‘exceptions’ are summarised in CPR 1998 rr 31.22 and 39.2. Adopt those rules into FPR 2010 and – in procedural law, at least – the problem would be solved.

And there it is: a family lawyer (me) who, yet again, protests too much on this subject; for I know Sir James Munby P is still tying himself in knots over it. The law is very simple; and it is clearly as can be set out in JXMX v Dartford for any children case (subject to the provisions also of Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12).

WHY FAMILY LAW GETS PRIVACY WRONG – response to ‘transparency’ consultation

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION: ‘Family Transparency: the next steps’

This is not a blog, but merely a means of publicising my response to the ‘transparency’ consultation. I ssek to show that for a long time family lawyers have misunderstood the common law, when it comes to privacy and open court justice. Court rules may be ultra vires. The short point is that privacy in any case must be justified; though in certain categories of case (eg children law) justification will be relatively straightforward.

Consultation paper from Civil and Tribunals Judiciary

A REPLY BY DAVID BURROWS

The CTJ consultation paper

  • The paper starts by setting out the views of the CTJ, expressed by Sir James, as follows:

A key element of the family justice reforms is the transparency agenda – finding ways of opening up the workings of the Family Court to public scrutiny so as to increase understanding of what we do and how we do it, whilst at the same time preserving confidentiality and respecting the private and family lives of those whom the system serves.

The underlying principles are two-fold. First, there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. Secondly, the public has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.

  • It goes on to point out that Sir James had ‘announced’ that he would be issuing a consultation paper. This, says the CTJ document, is that paper. It invites comment on four areas of family proceedings work:
  • Comment or Sir James’s Practice Guidance of 16 January 2014
  • Secondly the CTJ seek views on the listing of cases.
  • Thirdly the CTJ seek views on further ‘guidance’ which, it is said, Sir James ‘proposes to issue (sic)’ on disclosure of documents to the media.
  • Finally the paper seeks ‘preliminary, pre-consultation views’ on the hearing in public of certain types of family case.
  • This reply will concentrate on the third and fourth invitations. It will touch on the first only to the extent of urging those who run the family courts system first to respect ordinary rules of precedent. That should be the extent of Sir James’s concerns with law-reporting.

Summary of reply

  • This reply will start by seeking to define the common law bases for open justice – civil or criminal; and it must be done, and seen to be done (the Sussex Justices principle). This reply will assume that family law is but part of the civil justice system; not, as Sir James has often reminded us, part of some lawless Alsatia separate from the rest of civil justice.[1]
  • The open justice principle applies to all family proceedings. There are statutory exceptions to this, which will prevent or inhibit those who may attend a family hearing and the extent to which that hearting can be reported (Sir James clearly explained these exceptions in Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)). FPR 2010 r 27.10 and much of r 27.11 (which declares that proceedings covered by FPR 2010 are ‘private’ and purport to sanction certain media attendance at court) are probably unlawful at common law and made ultra vires the rule-makers.
  • The same applies to publicity for documents in family proceedings, save to the extent that the common law (summarised in CPR 1998 r 31.22) inhibits their ‘use’; or to the extent that they are derived from a hearing which in law or by judicial direction is held in private.
  • I shall therefore start by defining what I understand to be the common law on open justice. I shall explain how the common law and statute have restricted openness in respect of court hearings and of documents which are disclosed and produced at those hearings (including witness statements and expert’s reports). I shall conclude this part of my reply by asserting that family law must come out of its developing Alsatianisation. Its judges must apply the common law.
  • If this common law approach to family proceedings is recognised, then the job of family lawyers, judges and of would-be reporters of family proceedings would be relatively much easier.
  • I shall suggest that, so far as the consultation paper is based on assumptions on openness which are not in accordance with common law and statute it is redundant. The ‘open justice principle’ needs to be applied clearly to family proceedings. The vires of FPR 2010 rr 2710 and 27.11 need to be properly reviewed through a common law prism; and the common law and statutory exceptions to open justice must be clearly set out for family lawyers and the press fully to understand and apply.
  • This paper therefore proceeds as follows:
  • Open justice
  • Open justice: common law and Civil Procedure Rules 1998
  • Law-making: practice directions, practice guidance and precedents
  • Documents and open justice
  • An good starting point for family law reformers would be to consolidate into one statutory provision the exceptions to common law rules in relation to children proceedings (eg in AJA 1960 s 12and CA 1989 s 97). In one clear provision the law in this area would be so much easier than now, for the many lay people concerned, to understand.

(1)        OPEN JUSTICE

‘The open justice principle’

  • A modern statement of the ‘open justice principle’ is to be found in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618 per Toulson LJ:

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied.

‘Disclosure to the media of documents’

  • Though the Guardian case turned on the third main element upon which the consultation paper is concerned neither it, nor the later Kennedy case (which approved it) are mentioned. Yet, from at least the time of Bentham the principle that the press – now more widely terms the media – is society’s watchdog has been a cardinal principle of English law. The courts may not edit what the press, or others, choose report. This is fundamental to our society. The common law is ‘declared’ (as Lord Diplock described the process) in European Convention 1950 Art 10, as amplified by Human Rights Act 1998 s 12.
  • The extent of press freedom was explained fully by Sir James Munby P in Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) where he reminds the reader (especially at paras [20] to [40]) of his own, and number of other, cases on the subject. Sir James stresses the balance which may have to be struck between the respect for privacy for children and the right of parents and the press to give publicity to family cases. This applies especially in care and adoption proceedings.
  • In Re J, it will be recalled, a father had posted information about his daughter’s care case on ‘face-book’. Sir James defended the right of individuals aggrieved by the family court process to post their grievances on the internet, even when expressed in ‘vigorous, trenchant or outspoken terms’. He said: ‘there is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system’.

Family lawyers: the wrong end of the telescope

  • The common law says ‘open justice’ is the starting point (explained by such House of Lords authority as Scott (above), Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 per eg Lord Scarman at 469 and so on down to Kennedy). FPR 2010 r 27.10 says the opposite. Which is right? (In much of what is written on this subject ‘transparency’ is the term used by family lawyers, adopted also by the CTJ paper. In fact family lawyers mean the opposite of ‘transparency’. They mean the extent to which FPR 2010, the court and the press permit the common law to be stifled – whether rightly or not, in subjective family terms – and thus the open justice principle to be subverted.)
  • The starting point for any debate on privacy in any civil court must be the common law. This is the correct end of the telescope from which to look. A substantial proportion of family lawyers (see eg some of the assumptions on which the CTJ paper is based and the response to it by Resolution (representing 6,000 family lawyers, mediators etc)) look into the telescope from the wrong end. They start from a presumption of privacy. Sir James is, mostly, an honourable exception to working from this assumption.
  • The common law starts from openness. Privacy can apply, where statute or the common law so assert; not where mere procedural rules (eg rr 27.10 and 27.11) – perhaps illegally – seek to provide. Openness is the correct end of the telescope to look from.

Fundamental rights: common law ‘the starting point’

  • If the common law is to be overridden this can only be by express statutory authority. Press freedom is guaranteed by European Convention 1950 Art 10. Open court hearings are guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention 1950 Art 6(1). The common law (as summarised by eg CPR 1998 r 39.2(1)), confirms Art 6: ‘The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public’. Neither of these creates law, common law or otherwise. They merely provide a summary of what the law already says.
  • Having said all that, there is no question that Parliament is empowered to legislate in a way which is contrary to common law rights; but if it does so it must do so in express terms. Lord Hoffman explained this in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Simms R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp O’Brien [1999] UKHL 33; [2000] 2 AC 115 (in a case where the rights – upheld by the House of Lords – of prisoners to be interviewed by journalists who refused to sign undertakings which restricted their right to publish what they were told by the prisoners):

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.

  • Privacy is not a matter for Parliament, since privacy is already provided for by the common law (as I explain below). The involvement of Parliament can only arise if Parliament decides to alter the common law and Human Rights Act 1998 s 12 and European Convention 1950 Art 10. There is no evidence of any Parliamentary will for promotion of privacy. Were there to have been it might have been incorporated into Children and Families Act 2014.

Statutory inhibitions on open justice

  • Open as against private justice concerns fundamental rights. Legislation at present is very limited, the most obvious being Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12 (as explained by Sir James in Re J [2013] above). The fundamental position protected by the law is that all court hearings – civil (which includes family) as well as criminal – should heard in public. Any derogation from this must be justified: Convention rights and freedoms (the freedom to publish, being one), must be balanced against the open justice principle (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593). This is the correct end of the telescope.
  • Family lawyers have tended to think that hearings should be in private with open justice being the exception. The history to this state of affairs is traced by Thorpe LJ in Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261, [2002] 1 FLR 565. Family courts have therefore appropriated the term ‘transparency’.
  • This is wrong. A fundamental right, protected by the common law, can only be changed by express primary legislation (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Simms per Lord Hoffman (above); and see per Lord Hoffman again in R v Special Commissioner and anor exp Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, [2002] 2 WLR 1299).

Family proceedings and the ‘open justice principle’

  • FPR 2010 r 27.10 is as follows:

27.10 Hearings in private

(1) Proceedings to which these rules apply will be held in private, except –

(a) where these rules or any other enactment provide otherwise;

(b) subject to any enactment, where the court directs otherwise.

(2) For the purposes of these rules, a reference to proceedings held ‘in private’ means proceedings at which the general public have no right to be present.

  • FPR 2010 r 27.11 (as relevant here) then continues:

27.11 Attendance at private hearings

(1) This rule applies when proceedings are held in private, except…

(2) When this rule applies, no person shall be present during any hearing other than –

(a) an officer of the court;

(b) a party to the proceedings;

(c) a litigation friend for any party, or legal representative instructed to act on that party’s behalf;

(d) an officer of the service or Welsh family proceedings officer;

(e) a witness;

(f) duly accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations; and

(g) any other person whom the court permits to be present.

(3) At any stage of the proceedings the court may direct that persons within paragraph (2)(f) shall not attend the proceedings or any part of them, where satisfied that –

(a) this is necessary –

(i) in the interests of any child concerned in, or connected with, the proceedings;

(ii) for the safety or protection of a party, a witness in the proceedings, or a person connected with such a party or witness; or

(iii) for the orderly conduct of the proceedings; or

(b) justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced.

(4) The court may exercise the power in paragraph (3) of its own initiative or pursuant to representations made by any of the persons listed in paragraph (5), and in either case having given to any person within paragraph (2)(f) who is in attendance an opportunity to make representations.

(5) At any stage of the proceedings, the following persons may make representations to the court regarding restricting the attendance of persons within paragraph (2)(f) in accordance with paragraph (3) –

(a) a party to the proceedings;

(b) any witness in the proceedings;

(c) where appointed, any children’s guardian;

(d) where appointed, an officer of the service or Welsh family proceedings officer, on behalf of the child the subject of the proceedings;

(e) the child, if of sufficient age and understanding.

(6) This rule does not affect any power of the court to direct that witnesses shall be excluded until they are called for examination.

(7) In this rule ‘duly accredited’ refers to accreditation in accordance with any administrative scheme for the time being approved for the purposes of this rule by the Lord Chancellor.

  • No vires for this rule are provided for, in the usual way: that is to say, by statute. The introduction to FPR 2010 states, in terms of general rule-making powers, that ‘the Family Procedure Rule Committee makes the following rules in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 75 and 76 of the Courts Act 2003…’. There is no reference to any power in the Family Procedure Rules Committee (‘FPRC’) to make rules which, in effect, override fundamental rights such as those protected by the open justice principle.
  • FPRC powers are proscribed entirely by Courts Act 2003 ss 75 and 76. There is no statutory provision – and all powers of such a body as FPRC must be defined by statute – which enables FPRC to override the common law, still less to override the European Convention 1950.
  • The probability is that r 27.10 as a whole, and at least those parts of r 27.11 which are italicised above, are ultra vires the rule-makers and therefore a nullity.

Open court: the correct end of the telescope for family lawyers

  • So what is the position in law on open justice within civil proceedings generally (which includes family proceedings)? The common law rule is that all proceedings should be in public (Scott & Anor v Scott [1913] UKHL 2, [1913] AC 417 where contempt committal orders for publication of nullity proceedings were set aside by the House of Lords).
  • Publication on its own is not to be punished, said Lord Scarman in Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 at 469:

… unless it can be established to the satisfaction of the court to whom the application is made that the publication constitutes an interference with the administration of justice either in the particular case to which the publication relates or generally.

  • As Toulson LJ mentioned (at para [33] of Guardian v Westminster), another aspect of the open justice principle was picked up by Lord Scarman – ‘a thinker ahead of his time’, and in a minority in Harman (on a point which has now been altered to the position advocated by Lord Scarman: see CPR 1998 r 31.22) at that stage – in Harman v Home Office[1983] 1 AC 280, 316. Of open justice he said (at 316):

… [The judge] is also concerned to ensure that justice not only is done but is seen to be done in his court. And this is the fundamental reason for the rule of the common law, recognised by this House in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, that trials are to be conducted in public. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline referred with approval, at p 477, to the view of Jeremy Bentham that public trial is needed as a spur to judicial virtue. Whether or not judicial virtue needs such a spur, there is also another important public interest involved in justice done openly, namely, that the evidence and argument should be publicly known, so that society may judge for itself the quality of justice administered in its name, and whether the law requires modification.

…Justice is done in public so that it may be discussed and criticised in public. Moreover, trials will sometimes expose matters of public interest worthy of discussion other than the judicial task of doing justice between the parties in the particular case.

(2)        OPEN JUSTICE: COMMON LAW AND CPR 1998

Common law and Civil Procedure Rules 1998

  • Probably the easiest version of the common law to follow is as declared – ie the common law principle existed long before 1998 – in CPR 1998.
  • CPR 1998 rr 31.22 and 39.2 set out the principles relevant to what is under discussion here. Rule 39.2 (it makes more sense to consider r 31.22 later) provides as follows:

39.2 General rule – hearing to be in public

(1) The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public.

(2) The requirement for a hearing to be in public does not require the court to make special arrangements for accommodating members of the public.

(3) A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if –

(a) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing;*

(b) it involves matters relating to national security;

(c) it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality;*

(d) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party;*

(e) it is a hearing of an application made without notice and it would be unjust to any respondent for there to be a public hearing;

(f) it involves uncontentious matters arising in the administration of trusts or in the administration of a deceased person’s estate; or

(g) the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice….*

  • Each of the sub-paras marked * would be relevant to family proceedings; and with these and any other accretions to the common law specific to family proceedings this rule would seem to be sufficient – as it is in all other civil proceedings – to dictate when a court should sit partly or entirely in chambers. That is to say, all hearings must be in open court, and any hearing in private must be justified one or more of the grounds set out in r 39.2(3) or in any other statutory provision (eg Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12).

Common law and family proceedings

  • So what is the law today? There is no doubt. The common law rules. It dictates what the law is and what the family courts should follow. It represents the correct end of the telescope to place the lawyer’s eye. The common law can only be altered by express primary statutory provision, if that is what the legislature seeks (for which there is no evidence). FPR 2010 r 27.10 cannot alter the fundamental freedom of expression, essential to our common law.
  • The common law – as expressed by CPR 1998 r 39.2 above – serves perfectly well; and it is the common law, it is respectfully submitted here, which family court judges should follow.
  • The third subject in the JTC paper is release of documents to the media. Again, the common law deals with this as Toulson LJ explains fully in Guardian v Westminster. Family proceedings rules on disclosure, as FPRC assert (see their letter to me dated December 2013[2]), is essentially a matter for the common law.
  • The common law is declared by CPR 1998 r 31.22 and sets out a jurisdiction which arise from the question of whether documents in proceedings may be further ‘used’ by parties or others; though the principles on which the court decides questions of ‘use’ (in this context) and the publication of proceedings overlap (considered by me further in Family Law News [2014] of 6 August 2014: Reporting restrictions in financial remedy proceedings: a review after case management in Cooper-Hohn’ (referred to above).

‘Use’ of documents

  • CPR 1998 r 31.22 (as relevant here) provides:

(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where –

(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public;

(b) the court gives permission; or

(c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.

(2) The court may make an order restricting or prohibiting the use of a document which has been disclosed, even where the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public.

  • There is no equivalent in FPR 2010 or in family procedural rules generally to CPR 1998 rr 39.2(3) or 31.22.
  • Issues of publicity for a hearing or of documents therefore arise in family proceedings, and in financial remedy proceedings in particular, in the following contexts:
  • Whether there should be any restriction on the open court principle (ie full publicity) for financial proceedings (r 39.2(3));
  • Whether a document made available as part of the court disclosure process should be permitted to be ‘used’ separately from the proceedings (r 31.22(1)(b));
  • Whether such a document has been referred to in open court proceedings (r 31.22(1)(a)); or
  • Even if (3) applies, whether a party can be restrained from use of the document.

Documents in financial remedy proceedings

  • The comment of Stanley Burnton LJ in Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo[2010] EWCA Civ 1315, [2011] 1 FLR 1427 provides a starting point:

[76] Parties to a matrimonial dispute who bring before the Court the facts and documents relating to their financial affairs may in general be assured that the confidentiality of that information will be respected. They are required by the Court to produce the information and documents, and it is a general principle, applicable to both civil and family proceedings, that confidential information produced by those who are compelled to do so will remain so unless and until it passes into the public domain. That confidence will in an appropriate case be protected by the anonymisation of any reported judgment.

  • CPR 1998 r 39.2(3) provides a list of exceptions to the general open court rule, though it is only very rarely referred to in family proceedings. References to r 39.2 in family proceedings arise mostly only because it applies to civil proceedings in any event (eg Harb v King Fahd Bin [2005] EWCA Civ 632, [2008] FLR 1108: by contrast in DE v AB [2014] EWCA Civ 1064 Ryder LJ managed to deal with privacy without any reference to r 39.2(3) at all).
  • In Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] 1 FLR 565 Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P mentioned CPR 1998 r 39.2 briefly at [28]. The issue in Hohn, for example, related to attendance in court and reporting. The case could have been disposed of on principles under r 39.2(3)(c).

‘Use’ of documents following the court proceedings

  • Rule 31.22 deals with documents which are sought to be made ‘use’ of after a hearing (se eg Ms Clibbery’s publication of Mr Allan’s documents in Allan v Clibbery (above)). Where documents have been produced by a party because of the requirements of disclosure they remain confidential in any civil proceedings unless they have been ‘referred to… in public’ or the court permits their ‘use’ by third parties (r 31.22(1)). A further question (outside the scope of this note) is: does the court have power, on its own initiative, to order release of documents to third parties (eg HMRC): in A v A; B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701, Charles J concluded that he could find no authority which prevented him from so doing, and made orders for release accordingly.
  • Documents which are disclosed, under what amounts to compulsion, can only be used for the proceedings in which they are disclosed. Such disclosure has been treated as being subject to an ‘implied undertaking’ that they will not be used for any purpose other than the proceedings. Rule 31.22(1) is intended as a release from this undertaking (SmithKline Beeecham plc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1109 at [28]). The undertaking and thus the obligation not to use documents is owed to the court (Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd and Another [1991] 1 WLR 756 per Hobhouse J at 774H). A party may apply to publicise or otherwise to release – to ‘use’ – such documents r 31.22(1)(b).

Has a document has been referred to in open court proceedings

  • If a document has been ‘read to or by the court, or [has been] referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public’ it can be released (eg published in the press), subject to any r 31.22(1) order. The principle of openness remains the starting point: see eg Lilly Icos v Pfizer Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 2:

… [25] (iv) simple assertions of confidentiality and of the damage that will be done by publication, even if supported by both parties, should not prevail. The court will require specific reasons why a party would be damaged by the publication of a document.

  • In Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, [1999] 4 All ER 498 Lord Bingham LCJ explained the significance of ‘read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing’ in CPR 1998 r 31.22(1)(a). These applications are likely to be resolved (see eg Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] Fam 261, [2002] 1 FLR 565) on principles akin to an application for privacy of proceedings. Under r 31.22(2) a party may apply restriction of release of read documents (r 31.22(2)). Mr Allan’s application, on analogy with 31.22(2), failed before Munby J and before the Court of Appeal.

Release of documents to a third party

  • A third party (such as HMRC) can apply for release to them of documents disclosed in proceedings (ie covered by the implied undertaking), or for documents referred to in private proceedings to be released (r 31.22(1)(b)) often for use in separate proceedings. In Tchenguiz v Director SFO [2014] EWHC 1315 (TCC), Eder J reviewed the law on giving of permission for release of such documents.
  • Each case, Eder J emphasised, turns on its own facts (Crest Homes v Marks[1987] AC 829 at 860). The public interest in the truth and making full disclosure ‘operates in favour of releasing relevant documents from hub into satellite proceedings’ (SmithKline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 1479 at [36]). He concluded that ‘the public interest in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud [will outweigh] the general concern of the courts to control the collateral use of documents produced compulsorily on disclosure’ (Marlwood Commercial Inc v Kozeny [2005] 1 WLR 104, CA at [47], [52]; but see eg Y v Z [2014] EWHC 650 (Fam), where Bodey J refused a mother’s appeal that she could produce evidence of the father’s lies to the CPS and the Financial Conduct Authority and contrast A v A; B v B (above)).

(3)        LAW-MAKING: PRACTICE DIRECTIONS, PRACTICE GUIDANCE AND        PRECEDENTS

Common law

  • Substantive legislation (eg Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Children Act 1989) creates new law; but it may also codify or confirm the common law (eg Senior Courts Act 1981 s 37 merely confirms the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction generally to grant injunctions: by contrast MCA 1973 s 37(2) creates a new jurisdiction to restrain disposal).
  • Procedural rules, cannot create new law (see eg Jaffray v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586). They can only do what the primary legislation enables them to do (as explained above in relation to FPR 2010, FPRC and its powers under Courts Act 2003 ss 75-76).

Practice Direction, Practice Guidance and ‘gap’ rules

  • Practice guidance divides into Practice Directions, Practice Guidance and ‘gap’ rules. Practice Directions are made under powers in Constitutional Reform Act 2005 by the Lord Chancellor who can delegate his authority to eg the Lord Chief Justice, who can delegate to the President of the Family Division (family proceedings Practice Directions issued by the President are endorsed as being approved by the LCJ).
  • The limits on the issue of guidance was explained in Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Bovale Ltd and anor [2009] EWCA Civ 171 (‘Bovale’). In that case the Court of Appeal analysed the making of practice directions. The court allowed an appeal where Collins J had not followed a practice direction in a planning case. In doing so they considered the background, first, to the making of directions; and then what were a judge’s powers to make directions if there appeared to be no rule to cover the procedural or practice point in question.
  • Neither a procedural rule (see per Buxton LJ in in Jaffray & Ors (above) at para [7]-[9]) nor a practice direction can change the law. Practice directions are limited to their function which is to regulate court proceedings alongside or as a supplement to procedural rules (Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of Costs)[2001] 1 FLR 602, CA). This was explained by Brooke LJ in KU (A Child) v LC [2005] EWCA Civ 475 at para [48] for practice directions:

It is sufficient for present purposes to say that a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable guidance to matters of practice in the civil courts, but in so far as they contain statements of the law which are wrong they carry no authority at all.

‘Gap’ rules

  • If a judge perceives a gap in practice rules s/he is entitled to fill that gap (Bovale paras [37]-[39]). Unless a gap is perceived it is not open to a judge – even at High Court level – to declare of his own initiative what practice should be.
  • A recent breach of this principle can be seen in UL v BK (Freezing Orders: Safeguards: Standard Examples) [2013] UKHC 1735 (Fam). In that case Mostyn J issued professional guidance to solicitors (though it affects the bar also) in the case of Imerman documents (Imerman v Tchenguiz and ors [2010] EWCA Civ 908: private documents taken by one spouse unknown to the other). The ‘guidance’ was no part of the ratio of the court’s decision. It was issued without the court hearing argument on the subject from any practising lawyers (or eg from the Law Society or the Bar Council). It fills no Bovale gap necessary to enable the court to resolve a disputed issue in that case.
  • By contrast, an example of how a ‘gap’ practice direction may fairly be given by a judge can be seen in operation by Keehan J in A Local Authority v DG & Ors [2014] EWHC 63 (Fam). He set out what he proposed as practice guidance for a parent who was being prosecuted in proceedings parallel to care proceedings, and gave advocates involved a chance to be heard by him on what he proposed. A Bovale gap was filled. The law was correctly and fairly applied.

Rules of reporting family cases

  • It must follow from the above that a reporter does not need the court’s permission in any case to report it, subject to the substantial inhibitions placed upon him/her by any court order or by the statutory controls in eg Administration of Justice Act 1960, CYPA 1933 and Children Act 1989 s 97 (especially in relation to children proceedings). The 16 January 2014 Guidance is, to that extent, unnecessary.
  • It is for the reporter to decide what should be reported, and for the press to take any risk of an application to commit (see Lord Scarman in Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 (above)). Nor is it for the judges to advise the press as to what they may or may not publish, as Sir James (then Munby J) pointed out in Spencer v Spencer [2009] EWHC 1529 (Fam) (recalled eg by Roberts J in Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 2314 (Fam)).

Precedent and citation of authorities

  • The fact that a judgment is published does not mean it is a precedent in any real sense of the word; still less does it mean that it is read. Citation depends on the authoritativeness of what is reported. A summary of what courts permit to be cited is in Practice Direction of 9 April 2001: Citation of Authorities [2001] 1 WLR 1001.
  • This practice direction direct – and it remains good practice in all courts – that save where a judgement clearly indicates that ‘it purports to establish a new principle or to extend the present law’ (para 6.1) certain categories of case may not be cited at all in court (para 6.2) (ie citation, on this criterion, is unlawful):
  • Applications attended by one party only
  • Applications for permission to appeal
  • Decisions which establish only that a case is arguable
  • All county court cases (there was no family court then) save to deal with an issue not decided at higher level which affects decisions at county court level.

(4)        DOCUMENTS AND OPEN JUSTICE

Use of court documents

  • Release of documents to a third party – essentially as covered by CPR 1998 r 31.22, which can be said to represent the common law and to apply in family proceedings – is the subject of the third part of the consultation. An essay to deal with the subject at common law is herewith.
  • The lead case is R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618 as approved by Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 (decided after the essay below was written). Neither of these cases are referred to in the CTJ paper.
  • A simple conclusion, which answers the third part of the CTJ paper (‘III’) on a principled basis, is that the common law rules set out in CPR 1998 r 31.22, apply to all family proceedings. This is a conclusion in line with the Court of Appeal in Allan v Clibbery. If courts follow the common law – which they must – then therein lies the answer to III; and no more need be said.
  • If family judges feel they need principles to be enunciated that is for them, not for the CTJ or for Guidance from Sir James (for the reasons set out in section (3) above). The guardian case is the starting point; CPR 1998 r 31.22 the common law in summary; and, where need be, a European Convention 1950 balance between Arts 6(1), 8 and 10 (with Human Rights Act 1998 s 12(4) leavening, as need be) will be required to be conducted.
  • If children or other factors requiring privacy are involved then principles summarised on CPR 1998 r 39.2(3) will apply.

REPLY TO CTJ CONSULATION

‘Transparency’: family court emperor’s clothes

  • ‘Transparency’ is a euphemism used by family courts to justify often unlawful privacy. The history of this development is outlined by Thorpe LJ in Allan v Clibbery. Use of the term gets the law the wrong way around (the ‘wrong end of the telescope’ argument summarised above). Now is surely the time for Sir James to follow the logic of so many of his own decisions – starting with Allan v Clibbery at first instance – and to play the small boy at the family law privacy emperor’s court.
  • The panoply of case law and court rules all come down to there being no rule of privacy: the privacy emperor has no clothes. FPR 2010 r 27.10 is unlawful. In each family case – and general principles to define exceptions will be quickly developed by the common law, that is by family judges – open justice is the rule. To control indiscriminate open court hearings in family proceedings, common law principles (as summarised in CPR 1998 rr 39.2(3)) apply. This is a matter of law.
  • In respect of documents, CPR 1998 r 31.22 is the starting point, as further explained by ota Guardian v Westminster; and as elaborated upon in the essay below.
  • In the meantime the 16 January 2014 ‘guidance’ in the form put out by Sir James is not strictly necessary. It is based largely on a misunderstanding (see eg discussion of the vires of FPR 2010 r 27.10 and 27.11) as to the role of the common law and the open justice principle in family proceedings, balanced against the common law and existing statutory constraints upon that principle in family proceedings.

Reply

  • The CTJ paper invites comment on four areas of family proceedings work (as already summarised):
  • Comment or Sir James’s Practice Guidance of 16 January 2014. This Guidance is very personal to Sir James and shows no signs of having any real force in constitutional terms (see eg Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Bovale Ltd and anor [2009] EWCA Civ 171).
  • Listing of cases (outside the scope of this reply).
  • Further ‘guidance’ which, it is said, Sir James ‘proposes to issue (sic)’ on disclosure of documents to the media.
  • ‘Preliminary, pre-consultation views’ on the hearing in public of certain types of family case.
  • I feel I can offer little on (2); and that what I say about ‘guidance’ issued without reference to Constitutional Reform Act 2005 or Bovale is sufficient. Consultation on (4) is redundant if family courts consider themselves bound by common law and European Convention 1950 principles (as set out above). In my opinion they are bound by such principles; and that opinion is bolstered by a number of Sir James’s own decisions since he became a High Court judge.
  • Of (3): if the common law (summarised in CPR 1998 r 31.22) is applied – as, once more, I say it must be – then the need for any more on the subject of documents disappears. I commend my essay below on applicable legal principle (below) to CTJ (and to Sir James if it is he who takes this on for CTJ), on the subject of release or other ‘use’ of court documents.

OPEN JUSTICE AND PRIVACY IN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS

A new definition of privacy and open justice and family proceedings

  • The common law rule for any civil (including family) proceedings is simple. Privacy in any case must be justified. (FPR 2010 rr 27.10 and 27.11, and any other similar FPR 2010 rule, are to that extent unlawful, and should be revoked as soon as possible, please).
  • Justification of privacy in many family court cases and by reference to common law principles summarised in CPR 1998 r 39.2(2) will often be relatively straightforward. In children cases at least three statutory restrictions apply (as fully explained by Sir James in Re J [2013] (above)).
  • Release and other ‘use’ of documents will be governed by the common law as summarised in CPR 1998 r 31.22, as explained by the case law referred to in the essay below and as acknowledged by FPRC itself in their letter referred to above.
  • The CTJ paper asserts:

The underlying principles [of ‘transparency’] are two-fold. First, there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. Secondly, the public has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.

Open justice: an absolute; justification of privacy

  • The need for ‘greater transparency’ is guaranteed by common law: indeed openness in justice is an absolute (see eg European Convention 1950 Art 6(1)).
  • Subject to appropriate judicially directed redaction, the public – so far as they want to – may read what is done in the family courts (the Sussex Justices principle). Any restriction of open justice must be justified according to legal principle (eg CPR 1998 r 39.2(3)).
  • In children cases there are a number of statutory exceptions to open justice, and thus limitations on, for example, liberty to ‘read’ or otherwise use documents from proceedings; and in other types of proceedings, r 39.2(2) exemptions may be used to support a privacy claim under r 31.22. This may depend, for example, on whether documents were ‘read’ in court, or whether an implied undertaking as to further use of disclosed documents applies.

‘Open justice principle’ in family proceedings

  • If the short set of principles summarised here are agreed to be a summary of English common law then it remains only to assert the ‘open justice principle’ in all family proceedings, to revoke offending rules, and to be clear as to the varied sources – statutory and common law – of the principles which guide restrictions on openness.

David Burrows

31 October 2014

1        DISCLOSURE TO THIRD PARTIES: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Collateral disclosure

  • The rights of a party under European Convention 1950 Arts 6(1) and 10 bring into question the extent to which documents produced in court may be released to a third party whether (say) for publication or for private use. Here the public interest in an open trial – ‘the open trial principle’ – can be seen in conflict with the principle that a person who discloses documents in private litigation suffers a real incursion into his/her privacy. Any earlier case law, especially where procedures in the family court may be thought to conflict, must be seen in the light of the common law principles explained in Guardian v Westminster Magistrates’ Court (below).
  • As will be seen particular questions arise in family proceedings: the interests of children raise their own concerns. Financial remedy proceedings may give rise to special rights not to disclose derived from the concerns of family judges that spouses are not discouraged from disclosure by fear that their information will be passed on to others such as for tax assessment. A party producing documents in financial remedy proceedings may be covered by a measure of self-incrimination privilege, for example in respect of disclosure to tax authorities (R v K [2009] EWCA Crim 1640, [2010] Q.B. 343, [2010] 1 FLR 807). Subject to that disclosure is a matter which is regulated by common law principles (as explained in the main reply to the consultation); and by such inherent jurisdiction as the court may have to restrict disclosure.

Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own procedure: open justice principle

  • The jurisdiction of a court to permit release of disclosed documents (for example for publication) was considered by the Court of Appeal in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 WLR 1343. The court considered that each individual court’s jurisdiction to control disclosure of documents, where those documents had been used in court, was a matter for a court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own procedure (and seeAttorney General v Leveller Magazine [1979] AC 440).
  • Such procedure was governed by the ‘open justice principle’ said Toulson LJ. It was founded in the common law. (The approach of Toulson LJ to common law development in this case is specifically approved by the Supreme Court in Reilly’s Application for Judicial Review [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020 at [61]; and again in Kennedy v The Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20).
  • It is a matter for the individual court to which application for release of documents is made, to determine to what extent this principle applies:

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied….

[73] More fundamentally, although the sovereignty of Parliament means that the responsibility of the courts for determining the scope of the open justice principle may be affected by an Act of Parliament, Parliament should not be taken to have legislated so as to limit or control the way in which the court decides such a question unless the language of the statute makes it plain beyond possible doubt that this was Parliament’s intention.

  • These general principles must now be considered in the light of particular circumstances:
  • Where permission to use documents for publication (ie release of documents so they can be published or otherwise seen by third parties) is requested
  • Where permission is sought for disclosure to government authorities (eg HMRC)

2        PERMISSION FOR PUBLICATION

Permission to third parties

  • In R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618 the Court of Appeal reviewed the law on access to court records and documents, in the light of Human Rights Act 1998 and of common law developments in England and Wales and abroad. Toulson LJ, with whom Lord Neuberger and Hooper LJ agreed, recognised (at para [90]) that the court’s decision ‘breaks new ground in the application of the principle of open justice’ but not, he thought, ‘in relation to the nature of the principle itself’.
  • The case concerned a successful United States extradition application of two men on bribery charges. The Westminster magistrate had held that she had no power to release to the Guardian documents which she had read and to which she had made reference in court. The Divisional Court agreed with the magistrate. The Court of Appeal considered the law afresh. It allowed the appeal and ordered that the Guardian should have access to the papers.

[87] In this case the Guardian has put forward good reasons for having access to the documents which it seeks. There has been no suggestion that this would give rise to any risk of harm to any other party, nor would it place any great burden on the court. Accordingly, its application should be allowed.

‘The open justice principle’

  • In the course of his judgement Toulson LJ (at [33]) referred to Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280. He suggested that the principles set out in Harman can be said to be restored by r 31.22. In Harman Lord Scarman (at 316) made the following point on open justice:

‘… Justice is done in public so that it may be discussed and criticised in public. Moreover, trials will sometimes expose matters of public interest worthy of discussion other than the judicial task of doing justice between the parties in the particular case.’

  • He then refers (at [34]) to Lord Bingham CJ in the Court of Appeal in SmithKline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, [1999] 4 AllER 498 (at 511-512):

Since the date when Lord Scarman expressed doubt in Home Office v Harman as to whether expedition would always be consistent with open justice, the practices of counsel preparing skeleton arguments, chronologies and reading guides, and judges pre-reading documents (including witness statements) out of court, have become much more common. These methods of saving time in court are now not merely permitted, but are positively required, by practice directions. The result is that a case may be heard in such a way that even an intelligent and well-informed member of the public, present throughout every hearing in open court, would be unable to obtain a full understanding of the documentary evidence and the arguments on which the case was to be decided.

In such circumstances there may be some degree of unreality in the proposition that the material documents in the case have (in practice as well as in theory) passed into the public domain. That is a matter which gives rise to concern…

As the court’s practice develops it will be necessary to give appropriate weight to both efficiency and openness of justice, with Lord Scarman’s warning in mind. Public access to documents referred to in open court (but not in fact read aloud and comprehensively in open court) may be necessary, with suitable safeguards, to avoid too wide a gap between what has in theory, and what has in practice, passed into the public domain.

  • The court stressed the fact that for open justice to work in practice – where judge’s pre-read and where much evidence is in writing and literally taken as read – then it must be axiomatic that documents be released. This will be subject to any argument that public or third party disclosure will cause any risk of harm which may be caused to ‘the legitimate interests of others’. Toulson LJ explains this principle as follows:

[85] In a case where documents have been placed before a judge and referred to in the course of proceedings, in my judgment the default position should be that access should be permitted on the open justice principle; and where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose, the case for allowing it will be particularly strong…. The court has to carry out a proportionality exercise which will be fact-specific. Central to the court’s evaluation will be the purpose of the open justice principle, the potential value of the material in advancing that purpose and, conversely, any risk of harm which access to the documents may cause to the legitimate interests of others.

3        APPLICATIONS FOR ‘USE’ BY THIRD PARTIES

Third party claims for release of financial remedy documents

  • A different set of principals can be seen at work where third party application is made for documents disclosed in financial remedy proceedings (eg under MCA 1973). This may occur, for example, where HM Revenue and Customs seek documents or information which has been disclosed. (Release to the Child Support Agency has now been put on a statutory footing: ). In the absence of agreement of both parties, the documents can only be released if the court orders. The principle was explained in the following terms by Stanley Burnton LJ in Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA 1315, [2011] 1 FLR 1427:

[76] Parties to a matrimonial dispute who bring before the court the facts and documents relating to their financial affairs may in general be assured that the confidentiality of that information will be respected. They are required by the court to produce the information and documents, and it is a general principle, applicable to both civil and family proceedings, that confidential information produced by those who are compelled to do so will remain so unless and until it passes into the public domain. That confidence will in an appropriate case be protected by the anonymisation of any reported judgment.

  • High Court authorities conflict. The only reported example of the Clibbery v Allan (above) principles being tested in the High Court since introduction of Family Procedure Rules 2010 arises in Revenue and Customs v Charman & Anor [2012] EWHC 1448 (Fam), [2012] 2 FLR 1119, Coleridge J. Unfortunately Coleridge J does not reflect upon the common law position referred to above; and treated himself as proceedings under a rule which could not apply (FPR 2010 r 29.12(1)). He does not appear to have been referred to Guardian v Westminster Magistrates’ Court (above; though HMRC v Charman was decided seven weeks after the Guardian case). He does not look at the issue in the context of, or on analogy with, r 31.22 (as did the Court of Appeal ten years earlier in Allan v Clibbery (above; though Coleridge J does refer to Allan v Clibbery).
  • HMRC v Charman is directly in conflict with the views expressed by Charles J in A v A; B v B (considered separately below). That case considers the separate but analogous principle of whether a judge him/herself has any separate role in disclosure of documents to public authorities. Coleridge J only considers two cases in his judgement, and A v A; B v B is not one of them.

4        PRODUCTION ON COURT’S INITIATIVE

Report by the court

  • A separate question arises as to whether, and if so when, a judge should take it upon him/herself to report what may be regarded as abuses arising from the proceedings. This question was considered in considerable detail by Charles J in A v A; B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701. The judgement is technically obiter; but it contains a number of insights into the basis on which a judge might look at the issues of confidentiality which arise where the court is considering referring on to public authorities, balanced against the public interests which arise in such a case. Charles J pits his own views of such matters against those which can perhaps be seen in the two decisions on the same subject of Wilson J.
  • In the later Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] 1 FLR 565 the Court of Appeal considered A v A; B v B but only in neutral terms (at para [70]) and without substantive comment. It remains the fact that this jurisdiction has not been considered (save in Allan v Clibbery) in any detailed way in the Court of Appeal, still less in the Supreme Court. Confronted by an application by a third party (such as HMRC) the adviser has no principled higher court guidance as to the principles to be applied.
  • A v A; B v B involved two ancillary relief claims which had been listed together before Charles J, because the two husbands’ joint business interests meant there was a considerable overlap in their financial affairs. By the time of the hearing the husbands had admitted attempting to hide the true extent of their assets and of their tax liabilities. Agreement was reached at the end of the first day, and consent orders were approved by the court. Before the orders were drawn up, Charles J indicated that he was considering whether to refer the papers in the case to various third parties, including the Inland Revenue and the DPP. The cases were adjourned to enable the parties to prepare argument on issues relating to disclosure. The judge sent a draft judgment to the parties which dealt with issues of disclosure to public authorities, to give them an opportunity to make further submissions.
  • This case will be considered at some length since it provides a full judicial essay in explaining when the court should, on its own initiative, breach any implied undertaking given to it, override the general principles in CPR 1998 r 31.22, and to adopt a principled approach to the overriding of the self-incrimination privilege which otherwise applies in financial remedy proceedings (R v K [2009] EWCA Crim 1640, [2010] Q.B. 343, [2010] 1 FLR 807).

Disclosure volunteered by the court

  • Charles J (at 711-2) started from the proposition that there was no clear authority to which he had been referred or that he had found ‘relating to the approach the court should adopt in deciding whether itself to initiate and make disclosure of material coming to its attention’. He referred extensively to the decisions of Wilson J in S v S (above) and R v R (Disclosure to Revenue)[1998] 1 FLR 922.
  • These cases, he said, confirmed the lack of directly relevant authority. He distinguished his decision from that of Wilson J. Those decisions were concerned with granting permission (prospectively or retrospectively) to a party to make disclosure or to a third party to receive disclosure. His decision concerned ‘as to what disclosure should be initiated and thus volunteered by the court’. But he continued: ‘…in my judgment the approach to both questions should fall to be determined by the same general underlying considerations’.
  • In either respect – disclosure to third parties on application by a party or third party, or volunteered by the court – Charles J took the view that the factors for the court to

consider were as follows (at 712):

Generally 

In my judgment when a court considers issues relating to disclosure of documents or information it is important to identify why the court’s permission or direction is necessary and thus (i) the relevant statutory provisions or rules, (ii) the extent and purpose of the relevant duties of confidence, (iii) the relevant private interests, and (iv) the relevant competing public interests.

  • Under the heading ‘statute and rules’ he sets out references to Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12 (which he holds not to be relevant in these proceedings) and the then relevant rules in Family Procedure Rules 1991 as follows:
  • FPR 1991 r 2.66(2)
  • FPR 1991 r 4.16(7) with Re PB (Hearings in Open Court)[1996] 2 FLR 765 on r 4.16(7) which is in similar terms)
  • FPR 1991 rr 10.15 and 10.20

Release of documents to the Attorney General

  • In Re Jones (Alleged Contempt of Court) [2013] EWHC 2579 (Fam), Sir James Munby P considered the extent to which that court had a right – a duty even – to release confidential documents to the Law Officers in the context of children contempt proceedings. Papers had been released by the court so that consideration could be given by the Attorney General to an application for committal of a mother in child abduction proceedings. Her advocate – ‘as he was entitled to’ (para [11]) – challenged the standing of the law officers to make application for her committal (the President answered this question fully in paragraphs [14]-[17] of his judgement).
  • Of the court’s entitlement to release documents to ‘some outside agency’ Sir James Munby P said:

[12] It is well known that, on occasions, judges refer the papers in a case which has been before them to some outside agency with a view to that agency considering whether or not to take any steps arising out of the matters referred by the judge. Sometimes the papers are referred to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to the possible commencement of criminal proceedings. Sometimes the referral is to some professional or other regulator. Sometimes the referral is to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Sometimes, as here, the referral is to the Law Officers. No doubt there are other instances. Although the basis upon which such referrals are made has not very often been explored in any depth – the judgment of Charles J in A v A; B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701 is an exception – there can be no question about the right of the judges to act in his way. Nor, in my judgment, can there be any objection to a judge, as here, referring the papers to the Law Officers with a view to them considering whether or not to bring proceedings for contempt; and, I should make clear, whether the contempt is criminal or, as in the present case, civil….

Confidentiality and the court’s order

  • Charles J considers any role he might have in ordering release of court documents in the context of confidentiality. The documents he was considering are confidential documents disclosed in private proceedings. He points out (at 715) that duties of confidence can arise in various ways which include where documents are provided as a duty or volunteered, or in accordance with court rules. The duty of confidence will be defined as follows:

In each case the reason(s) why, and the purpose(s) for which, the information is volunteered, or the duty is imposed will define the extent of the duty of confidence, and thus of the use or disclosure that is authorised without the need to seek the permission of the provider of the information, or to consider where the overall public interest lies.

  • He is clear in his view that confidential information which is disclosed pursuant to statutory or other duties should be used only for the purposes for which it is disclosed (which proposition he backs with extensive authority). It is in the public interest that such disclosure should be limited; but ‘it must be remembered that such limitation includes use and disclosure in the overall public interest’. He connotes these limitations with the implied undertaking’ in relation to disclosed documents.
  • He concedes however, that one of the purposes of the implied undertaking is to induce or encourage litigants to make full disclosure. He cites the comments of Lord Oliver in Crest Homes plc v Marks[1987] 1 AC 829, 857F Lord Oliver as an example:

Mr Morritt, however, on behalf of the corporate appellants, has rightly drawn attention to the importance, stressed in Home Office v Harman [1983] 1 AC 280, of preserving the implied undertaking. It should not be relaxed, it is said, as a matter of public policy, for otherwise litigants may be deterred from making full and frank disclosure.’

  • He concludes his survey of confidentiality, the implied undertaking and the issue before him (disclosure to a third party) by looking at these issues in the light of the ancillary relief jurisdiction. He refers to the duty of disclosure arising from Livesey v Jenkins (at 717):

It is well established that in proceedings for ancillary relief there is a duty on the parties to provide full and frank disclosure as to their means and other relevant circumstances (see, for example, Jenkins v Livesey (Formerly Jenkins) [1985] 1 AC 424, 437H—438A, sub nom Livesey (Fornerly Jenkins) v Jenkins  [1985] FLR 813, 821C and Baker v Baker  [1995] 2 FLR 829, 831—833 and 837). In my judgment this means that parties do not have a choice as to what information they provide relating to their means and other relevant circumstances. In my judgment, such information, whether provided by affidavit, or in answer to questions (before or after orders of the court), is provided under compulsion for the purposes of the application of the implied undertaking.

  • On the basis that ancillary relief proceedings are generally held in private then ‘rights of confidentiality and privilege are reserved in respect of all material provided by the parties for ancillary relief proceedings with the consequence that the implied undertaking applies to all of that material’. Thus, he says, his decision on further disclosure should operate as follows (at 718):

(a) that if a party had sought leave to disclose or use the material the implied undertaking would apply and disclosure or use in breach of it would be a contempt. This corresponds with the point made above under the heading ‘Statute and rules’ that disclosure of material covered by rr 10.15 and 10.20 of the 1991 rules without the permission of the court would be a contempt, and

(b) that in any event the court should apply an approach to those questions equivalent to that taken when the implied undertaking applies.

  • He concluded his decision in relation to confidentiality and the implied undertaking by referring to the absence of statutory provision preventing the court from ordering disclosure. From this absence he concludes that he is entitled to ‘release or modify’ the confidentiality conditions on which documents are disclosed between the parties:

In the absence of statutory provision precluding use in the overall public interest, the general position is that confidential material can be so disclosed, and used, and this is reflected in the cases relating to disclosure of material with the leave of the court, whether that leave is required because of the implied undertaking or by a rule of court (see for example Re Arrows Ltd (No 4) [1995] 2 AC 75, 103H—104,…  Re EC (Disclosure of Material)  [1996] 2 FLR 725, 728E—733H and Vernon v Bosley (No 2) [1998] 1 FLR 304, 319B—D and 344F—G). It follows in my judgment that a court can release or modify the implied undertaking, or give leave to disclose material subject to it, if it concludes that to do so would be in the overall public interest.

  • On the basis of its findings as to the inherent jurisdiction of the court to define its own jurisdiction on this subject (see ota Guardian News and Media Ltd (above)) it seems unlikely that a Court of Appeal faced with this decision, would differ from Charles J, and his view of the extent of his discretion as to disclosure to third parties. And this might be the more so if the public interest (eg that individuals should pay their taxes) is held to demand it.

Relevant public and private interest

  • Charles J summarises how he sees the relevant public interests (at 722), and then the professional duties which arise and impact upon his decision (he had been concerned as to the extent to which lawyers in the case may have permitted the court to be misled). He holds that there are ‘strong public interests’ as follows:
  • In ‘the proper and efficient investigation and prosecution of crime’;
  • That all tax should be paid and that in serious cases evaders of tax should be convicted and sentenced (a ‘factor in this public interest is that taxpayers have a duty to inform the Revenue as to their affairs and cannot remain silent’)
  • In the proper, fair and efficient administration of justice.
  • A v A; B v B was published some years before R v K and must be seen alongside that decision. For present purposes the decision in R v K concerns the extent to which a party to financial remedy proceedings can claim self-incrimination privilege in subsequent criminal proceedings (as compared with a judge dealing with an application to release or ‘use’ documents; or to release information on his/her own initiative). Self-incrimination privilege is available in other proceedings, because disclosure of information in financial remedy proceedings is treated as being required by compulsion. The balancing of public interests in any question of overriding self-incrimination privilege is governed by the Privy Council decision in Brown v Stott [2001] 2 WLR 817, PC.
  • In that case, Lord Bingham explained the qualification of any right to self-incrimination privilege, comprised as it is as part of the right to a fair trial. In particular he stresses the balance of the needs of the individual as against those of the community. He explains his view as follows (at 704):

The jurisprudence of the European court very clearly establishes that while the overall fairness of a criminal trial cannot be compromised, the constituent rights comprised, whether expressly or implicitly, within article 6 are not themselves absolute. Limited qualification of these rights is acceptable if reasonably directed by national authorities towards a clear and proper public objective and if representing no greater qualification than the situation calls for. The general language of the Convention could have led to the formulation of hard-edged and inflexible statements of principle from which no departure could be sanctioned whatever the background or the circumstances. But this approach has been consistently eschewed by the court throughout its history. The case law shows that the court has paid very close attention to the facts of particular cases coming before it, giving effect to factual differences and recognising differences of degree. Ex facto oritur jus. The court has also recognised the need for a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the personal rights of the individual, the search for which balance has been described as inherent in the whole of the Convention: see Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 35, 52, para 69; Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR 163, 191, para 52.

Release to a public body: the balance after R v K

  • In R v K the Court of Appeal treated Brown v Stott as establishing the following principle:

[41] …. that a restriction of an accused person’s right not to incriminate himself will not infringe his right to a fair trial provided that the compulsion under which the information is obtained is of a moderate nature and the use of the evidence obtained by it represents a proportionate response to a pressing social need.

  • So said the court if they were to allow the Revenue to rely on K’s evidence – in effect to release it for open use (in terms of r 31.22) they must consider the extent of the ‘social need’. In R v K it was to suppress tax evasion; but in the context of the information being required of him originally under threat of imprisonment, which the court regarded as ‘severe’. They reasoned their view of release or not of the information, and their discharge of the balancing exercise required of them, as follows:

[42] … The social purpose for which the Crown seeks to adduce the evidence in criminal proceedings is the suppression of tax evasion. No doubt the protection of the public revenue is an important social objective, but the question is whether the admission of evidence obtained from the accused under threat of imprisonment is a reasonable and proportionate response to that social need. In our view it is not. This is an unusual case in as much as the Crown accepts that without the admissions made by K it has insufficient evidence to maintain a case against him. In many cases information obtained by way of disclosure in ancillary relief proceedings will provide leads that enable the Crown to obtain evidence from other sources that is sufficient to support a prosecution and in such cases there will be no need to rely on evidence obtained from the accused himself. That has not been possible in this case, but even so, we do not think that the need to punish and deter tax evasion is sufficient to justify such an infringement of the right of the accused not to incriminate himself.

Release of documents; self-incrimination privilege

  • R v K dealt with the position as to privilege in respect of information already available to the Crown, and whether it could be deployed in court. A v A deals with the prior position. To that extent the two cases are no analogous. Charles J’s analysis, though obiter, holds true for a judge’s assessment of the balance required to release the information and documents. Whether or not they are covered by self-incrimination privilege is a second stage in the process of their use by the public body concerned.
  • Charles J summarised his judgement with a list of conclusions. Perhaps the most direct and assertive of the role of the judge – to avoid the cheapening of the law (as he sees it) – is as follows (at 746):

(13) It seems to me that generally there is very considerable force in the proposition that as Wilson J said in S v S tax evasion is greedy and antisocial which has the consequence that the court should not condone it, or be seen to condone it, in any way. As Wilson J says in S v S at 777G:

It feels unseemly that a judge to whose notice tax evasion is brought should turn a blind eye to it by not causing it to be reported to the Revenue. In one sense that would almost cheapen the law.

I would go further and say that to do so would cheapen the law.

[1] See comments of Munby LJ in eg Richardson v Richardson [2011] EWCA Civ 79

[2] After careful consideration the Committee concluded that the Family Procedure Rules in relation to disclosure provide as much as is needed. The Committee had not wanted to provide for open-ended disclosure by list, so had included only those provisions that were necessary. The rules in Part 9 (Applications for a financial remedy) and 21 (Miscellaneous Rules about Disclosure and Inspection of Documents) were not restrictive and did not undermine the common law duty of disclosure. It was considered that this was a training issue rather than one that required rule amendment.

RIGHT TO PUBLISH WARDSHIP CASES: HOW FAR?

Publicity: further scope for a criminal charge

 

Journalists may have been allowed by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, into the High Court in the recent, well publicised, wardship hearing before Baker J, concerning parents who removed their child – ‘Andrew’ let us say – from a Hampshire hospital against medical advice. But does that give them full permission – and any right – to report on the proceedings? If they or anyone else publishes information about the proceedings to what extent do they risk a criminal offence?

 

Rights of all concerned – the child (whose welfare is paramount), the press, the parents and other members of Andrew’s family – must all be balanced before a decision is made by the court to ‘open’ the proceedings (see explanation in the context of the House of Lords case of Re S below); and to permit the overriding of the criminal consequences of Children Act 1989 (‘CA’) s 97(6). The blushes (if any) of the police, of the hospital, of the local authority (who, whether lawfully or not, applied for the wardship order – see http://wp.me/4jaDx ) or of the family justice system are not part of that rights balance.

 

To my knowledge, no order nor any judgement of Sir James has been published (there is nothing on the BAILII website either for his or the 29 August judgements); so we do not know how he conducted the rights balance. Why, for example, did he think that publicity would serve the welfare of the ward, Andrew? How did he deal with Andrew’s welfare requirements under Children Act 1989 (‘CA 1989’) s 97 (see below).

 

Permitting anyone to attend court is one thing. What is published concerning the case – eg in the press or other media – is altogether another. Judges like Sir James, have been at pains in the past (see as Munby J eg Princess Diana’s brother’s case: Spencer v Spencer [2009] EWHC 1529 (Fam), Munby J) to stress that it is not for judge’s to advise journalists what they can publish; and it will not be Sir James – or it should not be – who deals with any criminal (CA 97(6)) or contempt (Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12) proceedings by anyone affected by the publicity which there has been.

 

What can be published, even though the press etc is let in?

 

So the court was ‘open’ (we all assume; though we have yet to learn the terms), but does that let those present – or any of the rest of us who have information about the case – merely publish whatever and as we see fit? I do not know what newspaper’s advice is to their journalists. Certain it is, alongside this, that the family law system has got itself into a complicated – needlessly, I should say – muddle over publicity for family proceedings (see eg http://wp.me/p4jaDx-68 ). Andrew’s case does little to help that.

 

Almost exactly a year ago Sir James Munby P, in a case reported as Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/2694.html) defended the right of individuals aggrieved by the family courts process to post their grievances on the internet, even when expressed by them in ‘vigorous, trenchant or outspoken terms’. The President set his colours to a mast he has powerfully – and rightly, in the appropriate context – erected: ‘there is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system’.

 

In Re J he set out the legislative restrictions on publicity a then goes on to explain the importance to the family justice system that it should receive publicity. He starts by pointing out the ‘automatic constraints’ on publicity.

 

CA 1989 s 97 (prohibits publication, but only till the conclusion of proceedings (Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2006] 1 FLR 11)). The prohibition in s 97 relates to any children proceedings and prevents publication which will identify the child or certain details about him (s 97(2)). It can only be overridden by specific order of the court that information can be published which identifies the child, and if the court has found ‘that the welfare of the child [concerned] requires’ publicity (s 97(4)). We await hearing what Sir James said on this point (which is in line with his European Convention 1950 duties under Re S). Section 97(6) creates a criminal offence if it is breached.

 

The more long-lasting and over-arching AJA 1960 s 12 provides as follows:

 

(1) The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except in the following cases, that is to say –

(a)where the proceedings –

(i)relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors;

(ii)are brought under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or

(iii)otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;

 

The section relates to ‘proceedings in private’, including family proceedings, but narrows those proceedings to those in relation to children, wardship etc. It is still the case that it may be contempt to publish information from such proceedings: this is the effect of the series of negatives by which the section is drafted. The person who wishes to publish must make up his or her own mind.

 

Relaxing the restraints on publicity

 

In Re J Sir James says simply (at para [22]) that ‘the court has power both to relax and to add to the “automatic [ie statutory] restraints”’. He does not state his authority in law for this. To ‘relax’ the restraints, as Sir James explains, the court must conduct a balancing exercise within European Convention 1950 terms, as explained by Lord Steyn in the House of Lords in Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47 (at para [17]). It is ‘necessary to measure the nature of the impact … on the child’ of what is in prospect, said Lord Steyn.

 

So, said Sir James, the interests of the child must be a primary consideration (ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 at para [33]). The balance must be drawn between respect for the child’s private life (Art 8) and the right of the press and a parent or others who might want (as in Re J) to publicise information (Art 10). Was this balancing exercise conducted by Sir James when he made his order in Andrew’s case, and if so in what terms? We do not yet know.

 

In conducting that balancing exercise, the primacy of the best interests of the child must be considered. This was further explained in the Supreme Court in (not considered by Sir James) H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (Official Solicitor intervening) [2012] UKSC 25 where Lord Kerr said:

 

[144] … It is unquestioned that in each of these cases, the children’s article 8 rights are engaged. As a matter of logical progression, therefore, one must first recognise the interference and then consider whether the interference is justified. This calls for a sequencing of, first, consideration of the importance to be attached to the children’s rights (by obtaining a clear-sighted understanding of their nature), then an assessment of the degree of interference and finally addressing the question whether extradition justifies the interference….

[145] ….no factor must be given greater weight than the interests of the child.

 

Like ZH, H(H) related to children in immigration proceedings (ie not involved with publicity), but the principles in relation to the interests of children are parallel.

 

Court promoting publicity

 

The court was not entitled, in this jurisdiction, said Sir James in Re J, to seek to prevent dissemination. But what – as in Andrew’s case – is the court’s role in encouraging ‘dissemination’ of information (if this was any intention of Sir James: his order and judgement will show)? Where is the primacy of Andrew’s interest in dissemination (if that was the aim), and of justification for interference with Andrew’s right to respect for his family life (Article 8)? Who (if anyone) applied for the relaxation of publicity, and on what terms?

 

Word from Sir James is awaited. In the meantime if I was thinking of publishing anything about Andrew I would look very carefully at CA 1989 s 97 and AJA s 12(1) see if overriding those statutory provisions is covered by Sir James’s order. The police have been involved in this case too much. Their further involvement under Children Act 1989 s 97(6) must be avoided.