Re G (A Child) (Litigants in person)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2003 |
| Date | 28 July 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Rix
Practice - family proceedings - assisting litigants in person
The Rules Committee ought to consider modernising the Family Proceedings Rules (SI 1991 No 1247) so as to allow a litigant in person to obtain sensible advice about his case without having to seek the court's permission.
The committee should consider whether a litigant in person should be obliged to apply for permission from a judge before disclosing case papers to a case worker at the Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau, or similar organisations based at other courts, the Citizens' Advice Bureau or the RCJ Personal Supprt Unit.
It should also consider whether prior permission was necessary before a litigant could approach Families Need Fathers, disclose details of his case to a McKenzie friend, or approach a mediation service or a registered parenting charity.
The Court of Appeal so observed on appeal by B, the father of a child G, from an order made in contact proceedings by Judge Hamilton in Manchester County Court on May 2, 2003. The order prohibited B from "disclosing in any manner any papers or documents … to any … expert in parental alienation syndrome or any other agency or organisation such as Families Need Fathers without the specific permission of the court." A penal order was attached.
Rule 4.23 of the 1991 Rules provides:
"(1) Notwithstanding any rule of court to the contrary, no document, other than a record of an order, held by the court and relating to proceedings to which this Part applies shall be disclosed, other than to: (a) a party; (b) the legal representative of a party; (c) the guardian ad litem; (d) the Legal Aid Board, or (e) a welfare officer, without the leave of the judge or a district judge."
Mr Robin Spon-Smith, assigned by the Bar Pro Bono Unit, for the father; Miss Kathryn M. Korol for the guardian ad litem; Miss Heather Hobson for the mother; Miss Heather MacGregor as advocate to the court.
LORD JUSTICE THORPE said he would construe the reference to publication in the rule as not confined to information communicated through the media. Private communication to individuals without permission might very well constitute contempt.
The judge's order was too general and too imprecise. It would be varied to allow disclosure without permission in the course of seeking advice of a summary of (i)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner
...CSIH 45; 2009 SC 598; 2009 SCLR 551 Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ 1113; [2004] 1 WLR 88; [2003] CP Rep 67; [2003] BPIR 1252; The Times, 31 July 2003; The Independent, 29 July 2003; (2003) 100 (36) LSG 41 Dransfield v Information Commissioner and anr [2015] EWCA Civ 454; [2015] 1 WLR 53......
-
Doswell (Erroll Edward) (R) v (1) Nottingham County Court (2) Nottingham Education Authority (3) Chief Constable of Nottingham Police Authority (2004)
...the practice and procedure in relation to which, are dealt with in the case of Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 reported in The Times of 31 July 2003 and referred to at paragraph 25.1.5 of Volume 1 of the White Book 2004. The applicant would be well advised to acquaint himself with t......
-
The death penalty - an obstacle to the "war against terrorism"?
...INT'L HERALD TRIB., Feb. 1, 2003, at 4. (290.) Somini Sengupta, African Held for War Crimes Dies in Custody of a Tribunal, N.Y. TIMES, July 31, 2003, at (291.) The Spanish government has indicated it will not extradite suspected al Qaeda members to the United States absent assurances that t......
-
A new approach to corporate criminal liability.
...Imperial Bank's deal with prosecutors concerning its role in the Enron scandal). (15.) See Editorial, Enron's Friends in Need, N.Y. TIMES, July 31, 2003, at A24 ("Robert Morgenthan, the Manhattan district attorney, said that he could not prove a criminal case because it would have been hard......