HM Solicitor General v Jason-steven Wong
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2684 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD23F00038 |
[2023] EWHC 2684 (Fam)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Cobb
Case No: FD23F00038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT 1981
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960
AND IN THE MATTER OF PART 37 FAMILY PROCEDURE RULES 2010
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Adam Payter (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Applicant
The Defendant was in attendance and unrepresented
Hearing dates: 1 & 9 August, 25 October 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 27 October 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
This judgment was delivered in public.
Summary of outcome
On the application brought by His Majesty's Solicitor General, I find beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is in contempt of court in that he:
i) Made a covert audio-recording of a substantive court hearing in adoption proceedings brought under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 conducted at the Family Court in Nottingham, sitting in private, before HHJ Watkins on 18 February 2022;
ii) Thereafter, within a few days of the court hearing, the Defendant disposed of the recording and associated documents to another with a view to their publication on YouTube.
This judgment explains my findings in relation to these proven contempts.
I will convene a sentencing hearing in one month's time. I have allowed this gap in time to enable the Defendant one more opportunity, should he wish to take it, to obtain legal representation.
Introduction
This is an application brought by His Majesty's Solicitor General (“the Applicant”) under Parts 19 and 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (‘FPR 2010’) for an order committing Jason-Steven: Wong (hereafter “the Defendant”) to prison for contempt of court. The application was issued on 20 April 2023.
For an application such as this to proceed otherwise than in existing proceedings, permission of the court must be sought (see rule 37.3(5) FPR 2010). It was clear on the face of the documents filed that the Applicant had assembled a strong prima facie case for seeking committal and that it was in the public interest for the proceedings to be pursued (see Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) at [23]); I therefore granted permission at the outset of the hearing on 1 August 2023.
It is said that the alleged contempt arises in two ways:
i) That the Defendant made a covert audio-recording of a substantive court hearing in adoption proceedings brought under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (‘ACA 2002’) conducted at the Family Court in Nottingham, sitting in private, before HHJ Watkins on 18 February 2022. The adoption proceedings (being conducted under a confidential serial number) concerned the Defendant's child;
ii) That, within a few days of the court hearing, the Defendant disposed of the recording and the associated documents to another with a view to their publication on YouTube.
For the purposes of determining this application, I read a bundle of statements and associated documents prepared by and on behalf of both parties. I have viewed a number of YouTube video recordings, one of which includes the audio-recording of the hearing. I heard oral evidence from Joanna Arnold, a Senior Lawyer at the Attorney General's Office; the Defendant briefly cross-examined her. Each of the three relevant video recordings from YouTube have been downloaded and exhibited to statements of evidence. The Defendant chose not to give evidence; he nonetheless filed some written statements relevant to his case, and addressed me from the litigants' bench in court.
I should add that the Defendant expressly disavowed his family name, and wished to be addressed in court as ‘Jason-Steven’. His full style is ‘Jason-Steven: Wong. Of the House of Wong’. Documents served on him in his family name were met with the response:
“You are in violation of the terms of my Performance-Contract-Claim by the Commercialization-Violation of my Common-Law-Name. [Mr Wong] is a Legal Fiction and it has been made clear to you”.
On the first morning of the hearing in relation to the alleged contempt, the Defendant took preliminary issue with its ‘authenticity’; he confirmed that he similarly challenged the ‘authenticity’ of the court hearing before HHJ Watkins. The Defendant sought sight of the court file created in respect of this contempt application in order (he said) to satisfy himself that it existed, that the application had been properly entered into the file, and the fee paid; indeed, he indicated that he would not engage with the contempt proceedings unless he could be so reassured. Deploying my powers under rule 29.12 FPR 2010, I gave my permission for him to be provided with a screenshot of the index of the FamilyMan digital file which confirmed the date on which the process had been launched, the fee paid, and documents entered on the court file.
Towards the conclusion of Mr Adam Payter's submissions on behalf of the Applicant, it became apparent that the Defendant did not in fact accept the summary note of his police interview (conducted on 8 April 2022), which had been included in the documents in the bundle. Mr Payter therefore applied to adjourn the hearing in order to obtain the audio-recording and a full transcript. I adjourned the hearing for one week so that an audio-recording could be obtained of the Defendant's interview, a transcript prepared, and both served on the court and the Defendant. This was done, but at the adjourned hearing (9 August), the Defendant was unwell and could not attend court; he submitted a medical certificate. The adjourned hearing was therefore re-listed for 25 October 2023.
The Defendant has throughout this process been unrepresented. On several occasions he has been advised of his right to publicly funded representation in line with Chamberlain J's observations in All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) and All England Lawn Tennis Grounds PLC v McKay [2019] EWHC 3065 (QBD) ([29(a)]: “As the Legal Aid Agency accepts, a respondent to High Court committal proceedings alleging breach of an order … is entitled to legal aid as of right (i.e. without any assessment of his means or of whether it is in the interests of justice for representation to be provided)”). His right to legal representation was made clear in pre-action correspondence, and at the earlier case management hearing before Theis J. At various points of the hearing, I reminded the Defendant of his right to have a lawyer at public expense.
Background
The Defendant is the birth father of a child who was the subject of public law (‘care’) proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989 (‘CA 1989’) brought by Nottinghamshire County Council. In or about December 2020 a care order was made (section 31 CA 1989) in relation to the child, and a placement order (section 21 ACA 2002). The child was placed for adoption. An adoption application was then issued by the prospective adopters under a confidential serial number (see rule 14.2 FPR 2010). A hearing was convened on 18 February 2022 for the court to consider whether the Defendant and/or the child's mother should be given leave to oppose the adoption application (under section 47 of the ACA 2002). The Defendant and the child's mother were unrepresented at that hearing. The local authority was represented by counsel.
Evidence filed on this application from the Court Support Team at Nottingham County Court confirmed that at the time of the February 2022 hearing:
“…there are notices regarding recordings, around the court building, outside all the courtrooms, and also on a central notice board at the public entrance. Anyone member of the public entering the building has to pass through security and there are various notices at this point, including a notice about recording, taking photographs and audio recordings. The court in which [the Defendant] attended, has a sign on the entrance door which states “It is an offence to take unauthorized photo or record video anywhere in the building. Audio recordings are not allowed in the hearing rooms””.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 18 February 2022, the judge (HHJ Watkins) reserved judgment, which I am advised he delivered electronically on 25 February 2022. He refused the Defendant and the child's mother leave to oppose the adoption, and went on to make the adoption order. That order brought the adoption proceedings to an end.
On or about 27 February 2022, a YouTube video was posted which contains an audio recording of the entire court hearing, with accompanying text on a rolling screen; the video is entitled: “Jason-Stephen (sic.): Clearly Exposes the Corruption and Conspiracies within the Criminal Family Courts.” (“Video 1”).
On 1 March 2022, Nottinghamshire County Council wrote to the Defendant (“the Local Authority letter”) requesting that the Defendant remove the film from YouTube.
On 2 March 2022, a further video was published on YouTube (“Video 2”). It features a woman who identifies herself as Ms Sian Gissing-McMeel, and who describes herself as “a public advocate” (in Video 3 she describes herself as a “legal investigative journalist exposing [the judge] in the public interest”) and an unidentified man (believed to be Andrew Devine). The Local Authority letter is shared on the screen; Ms Gissing-McMeel refers to it as a “harassment letter”, in which she claims that author has “threatened” the Defendant. She says that it is in the “public interest” to expose those guilty of “malfeasance” in public office.
On the same day a yet further video was published on YouTube (“Video 3”),...
To continue reading
Request your trial