Re C (A Minor)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1990 |
| Date | 18 December 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Dillon and Mr Justice Thorpe
Practice - judge - private interview with welfare officer - permissibility
It was permissible for a judge to see a court welfare officer privately in his room during a trial, but only in exceptional circumstances.
The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing an appeal by the father of a child from an access order made by Judge Aron Owen in Clerkenwell County Court.
Mr James Townend, QC, who did not appear below, and Miss Sarah O'Connor for the father; Mr William Bojczuk for the mother.
LORD JUSTICE DILLON said that after the father and mother, who were not married, ceased cohabiting, the father had access to the child for a while by agreement but in 1989 the mother stopped all access, and the father applied for defined access.
A welfare officer's report stated inter alia that the mother had said that she would rather go to prison than allow access. Its conclusion was that perhaps access should not recommence.
Soon after the beginning of the hearing the judge retired and saw the two welfare officers privately in his room. Shortly thereafter he invited counsel in. The hearing resumed in open court and the judge made an order for twice-yearly access for half a day on each occasion.
By direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals the judge was invited to comment on an affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal, and he did so. Such a procedure could be helpful in certain circumstances, but it should only be done by the direction of the court.
In his comments, the judge said that it was not his normal practice to see court welfare officers in his room but he thought the case exceptional. He wanted help from the officers and did not at that stage consider it right to discuss in the presence of the parties questions of the mother's possible imprisonment for deliberate breach of a court access order.
The help he wanted was whether the officers could suggest some form of access, as an alternative to the conclusion in the report. They suggested twice-yearly half-day access, whereupon counsel were invited in and the suggestion was put to them.
Mr Townend submitted that the judge's order could not stand as a serious irregularity had occurred which was a breach of the fundamental principle that justice had to be seen to be done. He referred to four Court of Appeal cases.
The first was In re K (Infants)ELR ([1963] Ch 381) which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly
... ... In re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [ 1997 ] Fam 1 , CA applied ... Dicta of Russell LJ in In re T (AJJ) (An Infant) [ 1970 ] Ch 688 , 689, CA not applied ... (2) That the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare under section 1(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 ... ...
-
In Court
...consultationpermissible, in this case the welfare of-ficers should have been asked their views in open court. In RE C (A Minor) T’he Times December 21 1990. IN COURT Degree of What degree of violence is sufficient-ly serious to justify a custodial sentenceunder CJA 1982 sl (4A)(C)? When a 2......