R (Children: Control of Court Documents)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from family care proceedings involving the Appellant, referred to as R, who was an intervener in care proceedings concerning his two sisters. The proceedings followed a 16-day fact-finding hearing wherein the Judge found R to be a predatory paedophile who had raped one of his sisters. R was already a serving prisoner, sentenced to 21 years for offences including the oral rape of his three-year-old daughter and related child pornography offences. The hearing was conducted remotely due to the pandemic and involved significant procedural challenges, including delays caused by R's arrest and the need for disclosure from criminal proceedings, as well as accommodations for cognitive difficulties of involved parties.

The written evidence comprised approximately 3,000 pages, with restrictions agreed that R could not retain physical copies of the documents in prison but could review them during legal visits. After the hearing, written submissions of 160 pages were filed, and a 91-page fact-finding judgment was delivered and subsequently redacted to 77 pages to remove explicit sexual references. The Judge ordered that R should not be provided with physical copies of the judgment or submissions but instead receive a summary and a redacted judgment, due to concerns about the sensitive nature of the material and risks of misuse within the prison environment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has the power or jurisdiction to prohibit the disclosure of the full fact-finding judgment and written submissions to R and to prohibit his solicitors from disclosing these documents to him.
2. If such power exists, whether the Judge erred in balancing the risks of dissemination of sensitive material against R's right and future need to access the material for legal or parole purposes.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The court lacked power or jurisdiction to withhold the full fact-finding judgment and written submissions from R and to prevent his solicitors from providing these documents to him.
• Even if the court has such power, the Judge gave excessive weight to speculative risks of dissemination of material by R, with scant evidence that R had misused similar materials previously.
• The Judge gave insufficient weight to R's right and potential future need to access the materials to inform further judicial or quasi-judicial processes, including appeals and parole considerations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the Family Court's inherent power to control the use and distribution of documents filed in family proceedings, a power supported by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This power includes the ability to withhold documents from parties when necessary to protect the rights of others, particularly vulnerable children, under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Judge's order was made in extreme circumstances, given R's status as a convicted paedophile and the highly sensitive nature of the material, including graphic descriptions of sexual abuse and paedophilic messages. The court acknowledged R's cognitive difficulties and the need for him to understand the judgment but found that providing a full physical copy posed an unacceptable risk of misuse or dissemination within the prison environment, potentially causing further harm to the children involved.

The court carefully balanced R’s rights against the children’s rights and concluded that providing a redacted judgment and a summary, combined with opportunities for R to discuss the findings with legal representatives and an intermediary, sufficiently protected R’s right to a fair trial without compromising the children’s privacy or exposing them to degrading treatment.

The court rejected the argument that the power to control documents ended with the conclusion of proceedings, noting that the power extends beyond the proceedings and is reflected in various Rules. It also rejected the notion that R 'owned' the documents, emphasizing that the court controls the information contained within them.

Finally, the court found no error in the Judge’s evaluative judgment regarding the risks posed by releasing the full documents to R. The Judge’s decision was described as a sound and careful balancing exercise, with the material made available to R sufficient to understand the findings against him.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant, R, will not be provided with physical copies of the full fact-finding judgment or written submissions due to the extreme sensitivity of the material and the risks of misuse. Instead, he will receive a redacted version of the judgment and a summary of the findings, with legal support to ensure understanding. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applies established principles regarding the court’s power to control sensitive documents in family proceedings, particularly where vulnerable children’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 are engaged.