The secretary of state for justice was invited to intervene by the most senior family judge in England and Wales in a contact case which began almost four years ago and was further adjourned as a result of the lack of legal aid. Sir James Munby called upon the justice secretary Chris Grayling to advise on the situation when funding was not available from the Legal Aid Agency but which was ‘in the view of the court… necessary to be incurred to ensure proceedings which are just and fair’.
The case of Q v Q, concerned an application for contact by a father with his six year old son. The father was a convicted sex offender and the proceedings had been going on since July 2010. Expert reports commissioned as to the question of the risk posed by the father stated (in the words of the judgment) ‘unequivocally and… with some force’ that the son would not be safe in his presence – and as a result the father’s legal aid was cut. Two consequences flowed: there was no funding for expert witnesses and the father, who could not speak much English, was unrepresented.
The mother’s legal team had argued for the father’s application to be dismissed as it was ‘totally without merit’. However Sir James was ‘unpersuaded that there [were] not matters in these reports which could properly be challenged, probed by someone representing the father’.
‘The question then is what is to be done. On one view, we have thereby reached an impasse, which is unthinkable. This case raises, in quite an acute form, a problem which is increasingly troubling judges sitting in the Family Court at all levels.’
Sir James Munby
The judge cited a run of recent cases Re B (A Child) (Private law fact finding – unrepresented father), D v K  EWHC 700 (Fam) and Re R (Children; temporary leave to remove from jurisdiction)  EWHC 643 (Fam). ‘There is a pressing need to explore whether there is any other way in which two problems can be overcome,’ he said.
‘I appreciate that this is a case in which there have already been too many adjournments of supposedly final hearings. I appreciate it is a case which has been going on for the best part of four years, which is depressing to say the least. And I am very conscious of the fact that the mere existence of the proceedings, and they must seem to the mother and her son to drag on interminably, is having a significant impact both on the mother and also on the parties’ son.’
Sir James Munby
- JusticeWatch: LegalVoice to close - 20th March 2020
- JusticeWatch: Worse than LASPO? - 13th March 2020
- JusticeWatch: Keep calm - 6th March 2020
- JusticeWatch: Crumbs from the table - 28th February 2020
- JusticeWatch: Legal aid’s failing safety net - 21st February 2020
- JusticeWatch: And so the ‘headlong rush into impetuous reform’ begins - 14th February 2020
- JusticeWatch: The Brenda agenda - 7th February 2020
- JusticeWatch: Is the Justice System Failing Women? - 31st January 2020
- JusticeWatch: ‘We’ve been waiting for doomsday since the millennium’ - 24th January 2020
- JusticeWatch: ‘It’s payback time…’ - 17th January 2020