Rehearing of fact-finding hearing

Re W (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 113 is an appeal against aspects of a reporting restrictions order made by Peter Jackson J in relation to a renewed fact-finding hearing in relation to his earlier findings as to the death and injuries prior to death of Poppi Worthington. That re-hearing is published as F v Cumbria County Council and M (Fact-Finding No. 2) [2016] EWHC 14 (Fam).

The Court of Appeal emphasises two aspects of the family courts’ jurisdiction in this area, and leave a third open for decision – perhaps – in later case:

Poppi’s death and the hearings before Peter Jackson J

The injuries suffered by Poppi were following her death were a fracture to her lower leg and acute injuries in the region of her anus; though it was thought, at the first hearing of care proceedings for her surviving siblings, that the original medical evidence had not achieved sufficient clarity so as to identify the cause of her death. Peter Jackson J therefore allowed a further hearing, on the father’s application, which he explained in F v Cumbria CC as follows:


The judge concluded, on the re-hearing as he had before: namely that the father had caused Poppi’s injuries. The care orders remained.

This note is prepared on the publicity aspects of the case alone. As it happens – care proceedings were finally issued by Cumbria County Council in October 2013 – the case parallels the introduction of the President’s Practice Guidance of 16 January 2014, Transparency in the family courts: Publicity of Judgments. Peter Jackson J traces the history of publication – or not – in F v Cumbria CC as follows:

The reporting restrictions order

The publicity position before the Court of Appeal was summarised by McFarlane LJ at paras [11] and [12] as follows:






In respect of the second fact-finding hearing – or re-hearing – the order remained (see para [19]) as follows:




The appeal was allowed only to the extent of (1) removing reference to medical evidence as it occurred in the march 2014 judgment and (2) with tighter control of daily reporting (paras [57] and [59]). McFarlane LJ prefaced his remarks on daily reporting by admitting to 'substantial unease':



At a time when Dr Julie Doughty at Cardiff University has just taken up a research grant to deal with this very aspect of judicial anxiety (alongside the work of Dr Julia Brophy), it is worth recording how real are the grounds for McFarlane LJ’s concerns.

Open justice: a default position

In passing – though it is an important point – McFarlane LJ was firm on one aspect of the submissions made by counsel for the press. It was suggested by her that the ‘default position’ in any publicity case was the ‘open justice principle’ (a term used 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 and adopted by subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence).

Not so, said McFarlane LJ (para [33]). If any presumption exists as to open court, this may be so in the general run of civil proceedings; but it is not the case in children proceedings. There the starting point is Administration of Justice Act 1960 (‘AJA 1960’) s 12(1)(a) which provides:






So he says, the ‘default position’ where proceedings are covered by s 12(1) ‘is liable to be a contempt unless the court directs otherwise’ (para [33]). Children proceedings will be private (FPR 2010 r 27.10; and subject to any rare direction otherwise). This leads to the conclusion that for children proceedings there can be no ‘open court presumption’:

Relaxation of controls: judicial discretion

As already mentioned, the Court of Appeal was ‘uneasy’ at the judge’s approach to daily reporting; but it was stressed by McFarlane LJ that this was a matter for the judge’s discretion which must be accorded a wide margin on appeal (para [56]). The extent to which a judge may depart from the restrictions on publicity demanded by AJA 1960 s 12(1) justify repetition here. In the months before his practice guidance on ‘transparency’ Sir James Munby P gave judgment in Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) and explored the extent to which judge’s may diverge from strict adherence to privacy.

He starts by pointing out the ‘automatic constraints’ on publicity. Children Act 1989 s 97 (prohibits publication, but only till the conclusion of proceedings (Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2007] 1 FLR 11)). Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12(1) (above) relates to ‘proceedings in private’, including family proceedings, but narrows those proceedings to those in relation to children. It does not apply to ‘anyone involved in the proceedings’ (eg expert witnesses, social workers, the local authority etc; and see Clayton above). Injunctions for the anonymity of others involved in the process – eg medical witnesses, social workers etc – will rarely be granted, ‘unless there are compelling reasons’ (para [24]).

The court can extend or reduce the automatic constraints publicity; but to do so it must conduct a balancing exercise within the European Convention 1950 as described 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. 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).

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:



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.

The views of parents ‘caught up in it’ should be discussed publicly, and that they must be able to publicise their views of the failings of judges or the system or criticisms of local authorities. The judge must not be permitted to exercise any form of editorial control over this. In Re Roddy (A child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 949 at para [89]) Sir James (as Munby J) had emphasised that:


The court was not entitled, in this jurisdiction, to seek to prevent dissemination because material might seem defamatory or criminal.

Paramountcy issues

Two quite distinct paramountcy issues arise in this case. Neither were resolved: perhaps they need not have been. On the question of whether the paramountcy of a child’s interests applies, McFarlane LJ said only that the question had not been fully argued:


It is not possible to tell from the judgment whether the cases referred in relation to Re J (above) were referred to the court in Re W; nor whether this aspect of Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593 was dealt (probably not given the limits on time likely to have been available to the court). It is possible, in view of Lord Kerr’s comments on sequencing that the primacy of child’s interests has been dealt with in the Supreme Court.

What was unquestionably in issue in the House of Lords in Re S [2004] was the importance of press freedom which Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees. In Re S this special provision – not quite paramountcy for the press – was referred to by Lord Steyn thus (after he had set out the exact terms of European Convention 1950 Arts 8 (right to respect for family life) and 10 (freedom of expression):


Issues under Art 8 and 10 are central to any reporting restrictions order application. The rights of the press under s 12(4) will always be in contention where publicity for children proceedings are concerned and as explained in Re S.

---

The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.