The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing.
Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the fair trial provisions of Article 61) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Judges:
Bennett J
Citations:
[2003] 3 FCR 523, [2003] EWHC 1541 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 171
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1, Children Act 1989 97, Family Proceedings Rules 1991 4.16(7)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA 20-Jun-1996
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .
Cited – Clibbery v Allan and Another FD 2-Jul-2001
There is nothing inherently different in Family Division proceedings to justify an implied ban on all disclosures of matters proceeding in chambers. Here no children or other sensitive matters were involved. The simple filing of an affidavit . .
Cited – Allan v Clibbery (1) CA 30-Jan-2002
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Father v The Mother, O by Cafcass Legal; In re O (a Child) (Contact: Withdrawal of application) FD 12-Dec-2003
The father sought to withdraw his application for contact, but the court took the opportunity to explain some points relating to contact disputes.
Held: Such disputes engender very deep feelings. Courts must ensure contact with both parents . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Appeal from – Pelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
Cited – Child X (Residence and Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2) FD 14-Jul-2009
The father applied to the court to have the media excluded from the hearing into the residence and contact claims relating to his daughter.
Held: It was for the party seeking such an order to justify it. In deciding whether or not to exclude . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Human Rights
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.188859