Re R (Child Abuse: Video Evidence)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1995 |
| Date | 1995 |
| Court | Family Division |
SIR STEPHEN BROWN, P
Child care – allegations of sexual abuse – police having recorded video interviews with two children – father applying for copies of the interviews – police offering viewing facilities – father issuing subpoena duces tecum – whether in the interests of justice that court should order copies to be made.
Care orders were sought in respect of five children. Only two were the natural children of the father. The other children were the children of the father's former wife. Central to the applications were allegations of sexual abuse against the father in respect of his two natural children. The police had made investigations into the allegations of sexual abuse against the father. During the course of those investigations video recorded interviews had been conducted with two of the children of the father's former wife. Those interviews were relevant to the cases of the natural children as they related to the alleged conduct of the father. The police held the video tapes of those interviews. They did not intend to institute criminal proceedings against the father on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The father sought for copies of the interviews to be made available to him. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was anxious to preserve the confidentiality of the interviews, and to limit access to them to a minimum consistent with the interests of justice. In particular he was concerned with the need to ensure that ongoing investigations were not prejudiced, that copies of the interviews did not fall into the wrong hands, and that confidence was maintained in the integrity of the system of video interviewing of children.
The police offered to make viewing facilities available for the father and his professional advisers at a police station. The father wished to have copies made available to his advisers for private viewing. The matter came before Johnson, J in May 1995 for directions. At that hearing the difficulties which had arisen in respect of the videos were raised. He directed that a further hearing should take place, and expressed the hope that a compromise could be agreed. No agreement was possible. The father issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring the Commissioner to produce to the court the video recordings in question.
Held – In the absence of any agreement the issue of a subpoena duces tecum was the appropriate procedural step. The Commissioner was not a party to the proceedings and there was no power to order discovery of documents held by a third party. The court, however, had an inherent jurisdiction to make orders and give directions in order to enable full information or evidence in any cause or matter to be placed before the court, and to be made available to parties having a legitimate interest in the matter. Furthermore, it was
within the power of the court to order that copies of video recordings should be made available to parties subject to safeguards necessary to protect the integrity of the evidence. It was unfortunate in this case that it had not been possible to devise a voluntary system which would meet the legitimate requirements of the parties. However, it was clear that the father should have the facility of viewing the video with his professional advisers and that they should be able to consider the relevance and weight of such recordings. In this case the interviews might well have an important bearing upon the issues to be considered at the substantive hearing. The concerns of the police were accepted generally by all who dealt professionally with such cases. However, it was material that the video recordings should be made available in an appropriate form to the parties who properly required to have the opportunity of seeing them in private in order to assess them. A copy of each of the interviews should be made available to the father on terms which would protect the integrity of the documents. There were, however, a large number of interested parties in this case, and the court was concerned about proliferation of copies. Any application for copies would have to be very fully justified. The court did not feel that it was appropriate for both local authorities involved to have copies. The court would order that copies of the interviews should be made available to the father's solicitors and the solicitors for each of the local authorities.
Per curiam: It was impossible to lay down general guidelines for this sort of case. Each case would depend on its own particular facts. However, it was to be hoped that wherever possible voluntary arrangements could be made and put into effect.
Cases referred to in judgment:D v D (Child Case: Power of Court)[1994] 3 FCR 28.
Khanna v Lovell White Durrant (a firm) [1994] 4 All ER 267.
R (Child Abuse: Video and Expert Evidence), Re[1995] 2 FCR 573.
Charles Bloom, QC and Karen McLaughlin for the father of the two children in the care proceedings and of the child in the private law proceedings.
Ann Brownlow for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
David Houston for the Lambeth London Borough Council.
Charles George, QC for Bromley London Borough Council.
Anthony Kirk for the mother of the child in the private law proceedings.
Patricia Coles, solicitor, for the mother of the children in the care proceedings.
Anthony Hunter for the father of three of the children in the care proceedings.
Nicholas Adams, solicitor, for the guardians ad litem.
SIR STEPHEN BROWN, P.The court has before it, first of all, an application by the London Borough of Bromley to continue interim care orders made in respect of two boys presently in their interim care: the M children. No opposition to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re S (Contact: Evidence)
...to what is necessary to a proper determination of the issues. Cases referred to in judgmentsM and K (child abuse: video evidence), Re[1996] 1 FCR 261. M and R (minors) (expert opinion: evidence), Re[1996] 2 FCR 617, [1996] 4 All ER 239, AppealThe father of a five-year-old daughter, D, appea......
-
Cheshire County Council v C
...26. Cases referred to in judgment:Higgins and Higgins v Her Majesty's Advocate [1990] SCCR 268. M and K (Child Abuse: Video Evidence), Re[1996] 1 FCR 261. R v Ward [1993] 1 WLR 619; [1993] 2 All ER Margaret de Haas for the local authority. Jonathan Taylor for the mother. Stella Massey for t......