Harris v Harris

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment arises from extensive family law proceedings concerning contact disputes following the divorce of the parties, hereafter referred to as the Father and the Mother, involving their three daughters. The daughters reside with the Mother under a residence order, and the Father has sought contact over many years, resulting in a protracted, complex, and acrimonious litigation history. The litigation was initially in the County Court but was transferred to the High Court in 1997. Numerous judges have been involved, including Judge A, Judge B, Judge C, and Judge D, reflecting the case's complexity and duration.

The Father has repeatedly breached injunctions and court orders designed to regulate his contact with the children and his conduct towards the Mother and others involved. He has engaged in extensive litigation, public protests, and demonstrations, including founding a campaigning group, and has been found in contempt of court on multiple occasions, resulting in fines and imprisonment.

The children have progressively refused contact with the Father, a development attributed largely to the Father's own conduct, including emotional pressurizing, harassment, and breaches of court orders. Expert evidence from a Consultant Child Psychiatrist and social workers has consistently highlighted the detrimental impact of the Father's behaviour on the children and the family unit.

The court has heard multiple applications, including the Mother's application for committal for contempt, injunctions sought by the local authority and the Attorney-General, and the Father's numerous contact and related applications. The proceedings have been heard over multiple sessions in different locations, including Plymouth and London, with judgments delivered both in chambers and open court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether direct contact between the Father and the children should continue or cease in light of the children's welfare and the Father's conduct.
2. The appropriateness and scope of injunctions restraining the Father's conduct, including exclusion zones and communication restrictions.
3. The exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction and statutory powers to prevent abuse of process and groundless applications by the Father.
4. The continuation, variation, or discharge of the Official Solicitor's role as guardian ad litem for the children.
5. The scope and limitations of publicity restrictions, including contra mundum injunctions, and their compatibility with freedom of expression rights.
6. The regulation of the Father's involvement with the children's schools and related specific issue orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Father's Arguments

• The Father contends that the Mother has obstructed contact and acted in a manner amounting to child abuse, denying him meaningful contact with the children.
• He asserts that the injunctions and restrictions placed upon him are unwarranted and that his business is adversely affected by the exclusion zones.
• The Father seeks restoration of direct contact, including collection from schools, and proposes radical measures such as temporary foster care for the eldest daughter to facilitate contact.
• He criticises the Official Solicitor and the Consultant Child Psychiatrist, alleging bias, dishonesty, and corruption.
• The Father maintains his right to public protest and freedom of expression, opposing restrictions on his ability to publicise his case and criticise the judiciary.
• He seeks discharge of all injunctions and restrictions, asserting they are unnecessary and unjustified.

Mother's Arguments

• The Mother supports the continuation of injunctions and restrictions to protect herself and the children from harassment and emotional harm caused by the Father.
• She seeks specific issue orders to regulate the Father's involvement with the children's schools, fearing that prior knowledge of school activities would lead to disruptive conduct.
• The Mother denies allegations of obstructing contact and asserts she has complied with court orders and encouraged contact as far as possible.
• She requests a cessation of direct contact due to the emotional harm caused to the children by the Father's conduct.
• The Mother supports the Official Solicitor's continued role and relies on expert evidence to demonstrate the necessity of restrictions and the need for a period of calm and respite from litigation.

Court and Official Solicitor's Position

• The Official Solicitor supports the continuation of injunctions and restrictions, acting in the best interests of the children.
• The court, through expert evidence, emphasises the detrimental impact of the Father's conduct on the children and the family, recommending cessation of direct contact and limited indirect contact.
• The court recognises the Father's rights to freedom of expression and protest but balances these against the necessity to protect the children and the administration of justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a thorough and detailed examination of the extensive factual and procedural history, expert evidence, and the conduct of the parties. The analysis focused on the welfare of the children, the Father's conduct, the necessity and scope of injunctions, and the balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression.

The court found that the breakdown in direct contact was overwhelmingly caused by the Father's persistent harassment, emotional pressurizing, and breaches of court orders. Expert psychiatric and social work evidence confirmed the harmful effect of the Father's behaviour on the children’s emotional well-being and supported cessation of direct contact and limitation of indirect contact.

The court rejected the Father's allegations against the Mother, the Official Solicitor, and the Consultant Child Psychiatrist, finding the Father’s complaints unfounded and his conduct manipulative and untrustworthy. It was emphasised that the Father’s promises to comply with orders were not sincere, given his history of breaches and contempt findings.

The court considered the injunctions in detail, noting the complexity and multiplicity of orders which the Father had to navigate, and emphasised the principle that injunctions must be clear and unambiguous. It concluded that the injunctions were necessary and proportionate to protect the children and the Mother from further harm and harassment.

Regarding publicity and freedom of expression, the court acknowledged the Father’s right to protest and publicise his case but limited this right to exclude identification of the children or disclosure of confidential details. The court recognized the importance of freedom of expression, especially in relation to criticism of the judiciary and public interest in the family court system, and thus qualified the injunctions to permit publication of the Father's identity and involvement in the proceedings, subject to safeguards to protect the children’s privacy.

Finally, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and statutory powers to make stringent orders restricting the Father’s ability to issue further applications without leave, aiming to prevent abuse of process and to provide the family with a much-needed respite from litigation.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to DISPOSE OF the outstanding applications made by the Father, dismissing them all.

The court ordered that:

• The children shall continue to live with the Mother.
• There shall be no direct or telephone contact between the Father and the children until further order.
• Indirect contact is limited to cards and modest gifts sent through and subject to approval by the local authority.
• The Father is restrained by injunctions from harassing or contacting the children, the Mother, social workers, or entering specified exclusion zones.
• The Official Solicitor is discharged from further acting on behalf of the children.
• The Father’s applications are restricted by an order requiring leave of a High Court Judge before any further proceedings or applications may be issued.
• The contra mundum and in personam injunctions restraining publication of information identifying the children and family are continued but qualified to permit publication of the Father’s name and involvement in the proceedings, subject to safeguards protecting the children’s privacy.
• The Father’s privilege to enter the exclusion zone for dental treatment is withdrawn.

The implications are that the Father’s conduct has led to the breakdown of contact and the imposition of strict court controls to protect the children and Mother from further harm. The court has balanced the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, permitting the Father to publicise his case within defined limits but protecting the children’s identities. No new precedent is established beyond the careful application of existing law to the facts of this case, and the court emphasises the importance of judicial impartiality and the rule of law in the face of public criticism and protest.