The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
family law, voice of the child, vulnerable witnesses, Report of the Vulnerable Witnesses and Children Working Group, intimidated witnesses, transparency, legal aid
The final report and recommendations of the Vulnerable Witnesses and Children Working Group has been published. Of family procedure’s three hot topics – vulnerable witnesses, transparency and legal aid (funding) only the witnesses aspect is considered, though each might be thought to be interrelated – especially children and transparency and legal aid and intimidated witnesses.
Meta Title :Of vulnerable witnesses and children
Meta Keywords :family law, voice of the child, vulnerable witnesses, Report of the Vulnerable Witnesses and Children Working Group, intimidated witnesses, transparency, legal aid
Canonical URL :
Trending Article :
Prioritise In Trending Articles :
Mar 24, 2015, 06:15 AM
Article ID :108869
Hearing from children
and evidence of vulnerable witnesses: working group
Last summer’s interim report from the ‘vulnerable witnesses
and children’ working group has now produced its Report of the Vulnerable Witnesses and Children Working Group February 2015 (published in March 2015 by Judiciary of England and Wales). To its original title must now be added ‘intimidated witnesses’ (as will be
explained). Of family procedure’s three hot topics – vulnerable witnesses,
transparency and legal aid (funding) only the witnesses aspect is considered,
though each might be thought to be interrelated – especially children and
transparency and legal aid and intimidated witnesses. For example where
children are parties to proceedings legal aid will not be an issue; whereas for
many ‘vulnerable’ individuals legal aid will by no means be guaranteed; and for
‘intimidated witness’ there may be a call for the Attorney-General to be
The interim report of the working group can be found at here.
My own response to that interim report is here.
The report combines judicial concerns in relation to
children meeting judges in the family courts and – which is not necessarily the
same thing (as the report stresses) – children giving evidence in court; and
the need ‘to address the wider issue of vulnerable people giving evidence in
family proceedings’ (para 1). The report draws attention to practices in the
criminal courts where – as Roderic Wood emphasised in H v L and R  EWHC 3099 (Fam),  2 FLR 162 – the rules
and prevailing procedures are much more appropriate to children. It singles out
(para 8) the illuminating comments on children evidence of Lord Judge LCJ in R v Barker  EWCA Crim 4, at paras
–. (It is difficult to suggest a more helpful starting point for the
Group’s work than what was said by Lord Judge.)
The report points out (para 10) that ‘particularly in public
law’ (sic) the adults as well as the
children ‘are frequently “vulnerable witnesses”’ (a cross-reference is given
here which leads nowhere’). Unfortunately no attempt is made in the text of the
report or in the draft rule to define what is meant by this. For example,
reference is made (para 13) to the recent Re
K and H (Children: Unrepresented Father: Cross-Examination of Child) 
EWFC 1,  1 FLR (forthcoming and reported at  Fam Law 276) His Honour Judge Bellamy sitting as a Deputy High Court judge; yet the
issue in that case was not the particular vulnerability of a witness but the
appropriateness of a judge cross-examining a witness for the father applicant
and the funding of an advocate (by HMCTS or perhaps the Attorney-General) to
carry out that examination for the court (Matrimonial and Family Proceedings
Act 1984, s 31G(6)(b)).
Did the Working Group intend to look at the particular
funding issues which Re K and H
throws up? ‘Funding’ is touched upon as ‘a matter of concern and some
controversy’ (para 20). Its ‘ad hoc’ nature is said to be ‘unsatisfactory’.
But no recommendations are made by the Group as to how funding controversies
might be resolved in the particular instances which arise; and, for example, no
reference to the role which the Attorney-General (looked to by Roderic Wood J
in H v L) might perform in assisting
The Group reviews the existing guideline for judges in
seeing children and finds them to be flawed. They point out (para 24) the
importance of distinguishing between the fact that the judge is not intended to
gather evidence; but should consider their wishes and feelings. So, says the
Group, ‘There is a need for the evidence of children and young people to be put
before the family court as it would be in criminal proceedings’ (para 26).
The report concluded on this subject:
‘It is the view of the [Group: WG] that the Family
Court has fallen behind the criminal courts in its approach to their evidence …
Those young people that the WG heard from do not expect, or even want, the
judge to do as they say; they want to know that they have been listened to and
this perceived (and in many cases actual) defect cannot be cured with by
meeting the judge or tribunal alone if at all. To hear a child must mean to
hear her or his evidence and if the child/young person is not going to give
oral evidence there must be provision for their evidence to be heard as
directly as possible without interpretation by the court appointed officers or
Of terminology: the Group preferred to retain its existing
terms for the individuals involved, namely ‘children’ and ‘vulnerable
witnesses’. To this they add ‘intimidated witnesses’ (para 30). This means
incorporating into any definition of what is intended to be covered by the
rules what exactly is meant by ‘witness’; and that it may include a party.
Witnesses will in rare cases also involve those who are examined for the court
(as in Re K and H: a father did
not want to have to cross-examine his step-daughter who made the allegations
against him which brought the case to court; and the judge said this was not
the court’s role either). This will involve FPRC in the drafting of a careful
definition of terms, which the Group’s drafting has so far evaded. Its present draft
rule has no definition of to what the rule is addressed and as to exactly when
it will apply (para 35(v)).
Given the nature of the subject-matter – children,
intimidated and vulnerable witnesses often in proceedings where there will be
no legal representation – the FPRC are urged to recall their pre-eminent
statutory duties (as set out in Courts Act 2003, s 75(5)). Those duties are
that their rule making powers should be used in such a way as to set out rules
which ensure that ‘(a) the family justice system is accessible, fair and
efficient, and’ that ‘(b) the rules are both simple and simply expressed’.
Quite apart from its uncertain grammar, the present draft is
not ‘simple or simply expressed’ – certainly not by a standard which most lay
readers (and indeed many lawyers) would understand. For example, the long
sentences in the rules seem to leave its own drafter sometimes confused. The
draft does not define what is the meaning of its own subject matter: namely (1)
‘vulnerable witnesses’, (2) ‘children’ (which will not be the same as the
definition in Children Act 1989, s 105, since their understanding of the
proceedings will be part of the definition) and ‘intimidated witnesses’. It
leaves important matters vague ‘such other matters which appear to the court to
be relevant’ (draft r 3B.1(3)(d)).
Much of the proceedings to which these new rules will be
addressed will be lay people. The drafting of any rules must surely recognise
this? One of the great advances with the drafting of Civil Procedure Rules 1998
was short sentences and a number of one sentence rules. The drafting of the
proposed Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 3B, as now presented, goes back to an
earlier period of rule drafting.
It is sincerely to be hoped that the present drafters of the draft rules
at para 35(v) will carefully reconsider their draft and reframe it with
simplicity, clarity and aptness to the subject matter, and its lay readers, in
mind. The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.