HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLIFFORD BELLAMY

DESIGNATED FAMILY JUDGE FOR LEICESTER

NEWSLETTER – CHRISTMAS 2014

Christmas Greetings

As we prepare for a well-earned rest over the Christmas period, this seemed to me to be an appropriate opportunity to thank you all for your hard work during 2014 and for the support you have given to me as DFJ. Like any other year, there have been highs and lows. There has also been one constant and that is the commitment and dedication of all of those working within the family justice system in Leicester and Leicestershire. We all have different pressures bearing upon us – a high volume of work, insufficient resources, the challenge of complying with the 26 week time limit in care proceedings to name but three. However, despite the pressures, I believe there is am abundance of goodwill evident, for which I am immensely grateful.

I wish you all a peaceful Christmas period and a very Happy New Year.

Judicial comings and goings

This month we say ‘goodbye’ to three judges who have been hearing family cases in Leicester and say ‘hello’ to another.

On 12th December His Honour Judge Inglis retired. So, too, did his wife, Her Honour Judge Swindells, Designated Family Judge for Lincoln. I wish them both a long and happy retirement.

With effect from 15th December His Honour Judge Rogers became Designated Family Judge. I offer congratulations to Judge Rogers and wish him every success in his new role.

With effect from 1st January, His Honour Judge Brown will be sitting exclusively in crime.

I offer my thanks to all three judges for their support and hard work. They will be missed.

As well as ‘goodbyes’ there is also a ‘hello’. Her Honour Judge Jane George was appointed to the Circuit Bench in October 2014, having previously served as a District Judge in Nottingham. Judge George will be dividing her time between Northampton and Leicester. Her first sittings in Leicester begin in January 2015. I welcome Judge George to Leicester and look forward to working with her!

There have, of course, been two further important changes since my last newsletter in July. Mrs Justice Eleanor King was appointed to the Court of Appeal with effect from the beginning of October. I thank Lady Justice King (as she now is) for her contribution to the life of the Midland Region in her role as Family Division Liaison Judge and for her support to me as DFJ.

I welcome Mr Justice Keehan as the new Family Division Liaison Judge for the Midland Region. Mr Justice Keehan paid a visit to Leicester last week. He will be sitting in Leicester during the week commencing 26th January. As a former practitioner in the Midland Region he knows the area well and understands the pressures we face. He will, I am sure, be very supportive of judges and practitioners.

Progress

Advent is a time of expectant waiting and preparation. When I wrote my Christmas newsletter in 2013 that was exactly the position we found ourselves in, piloting the revised Public Law Outline and preparing for the coming into force of the Family Justice reforms, not least the creation of the single Family Court. We were waiting anxiously to see what the impact of the reforms would be on our working lives. All of that is now in the past. On the 22nd April the Family Court opened its doors. How is it going?

Locally, I believe we are doing well. There have been no significant problems around the Family Court itself. We were well prepared. The temptation to refer to family justices as sitting in the Family Proceedings Court lingers on. Some find the temptation more irresistible than others. But we are getting there.

In public law cases we are performing better than we were this time last year. In October (month 7) we had live cases involving 169 children (compared with 123 children at the same point last year). We are currently completing 80.8% of cases within 26 weeks (compared with 47.5% a year ago). The average length of a care case is now 30.9 weeks (compared with 34.8 weeks a year ago)

In private law the volume of work has fallen in the last twelve months. In 2013/14 new cases were issued 2603 involving children. In the first 8 months of 2014/15 cases involving 1583 children have been issued (full year equivalent, 2375). The target time for disposal of private law cases is 16 weeks. In Leicester the average length of private law cases in the first 8 months of 2014/15 is 17.1 weeks.

The pro bono scheme is working well, within the limitations of the number of volunteers participating in the scheme. One solicitor is on duty alternate weeks. Only one solicitor is on duty at a time. The combination of these two facts means that, from the parents’ perspective, it is very much a case of pot luck whether they are able to avail themselves of the services of the duty solicitor. If others are interested in joining the scheme please let Justine Blackwell or Emma Holyoak know.

Having made that point, it is also appropriate that I should draw practitioners’ attention to a comment made recently by the President in Re D (A Child) [2014] EWFC 39. He said that, ‘It is unfair that legal representation in these vital cases is only available if the lawyers agree to work for nothing.’ I agree. It is important to make the point that in our pro bono scheme there is no expectation that any solicitor will act (whether on a pro bono basis or otherwise) for a parent to whom he or she has given advice. The only expectation is that the solicitor will provide advice at court and, if necessary and appropriate, attend with that parent before the District Judge or legal adviser at the FHDRA.

Legal Aid

Since my last newsletter the President has handed down judgment in Q v Q [2014] EWFC 31. The whole judgment needs to be read with care. The central feature of the judgment is the President’s statement that he has,

90. …concluded that there may be circumstances in which the court can properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by HMCTS. I emphasise that…this is an order of last resort. No order of this sort should be made except by or havening first consulted a High Court Judge or a Designated Family Judge.’

There have been two subsequent judgments from the President addressing the same point – Re D (A Child) [2014] EWFC 39 and Re C (A Child)(No 2) [2014] EWFC 44. However, in none of those cases were orders actually made requiring HMCTS to bear costs not otherwise payable by the Legal Aid Agency. Indeed, at the time of writing there has as yet been no case in which the court has made such an order against HMCTS though I am aware of one such application that is to be heard in the High Court before Christmas. That, at least, should provide us with some guidance.

Re B-S (Children)

The spectre of Re B-S (Children) still hangs over many public law cases. In some quarters the message of Re B-S has been misunderstood. Re B-S is not about reigning back on the use of adoption as an appropriate welfare outcome for children involved in care proceedings but about ensuring that the decision to apply for (and to make) a placement order is justified by appropriate evidence and supported by robust analysis. Re B-S did not change the law. It served as a timely reminder of the need to comply with the law.

On Tuesday 16th December the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625. This provides an explanation of the rationale of Re B-S. The whole judgment should be read. However, I highlight the following passage:

55. Nothing that was said in Re B-S was intended to erode or otherwise place a gloss upon the statutory requirements of section 1 of the 1989 Act and section 1 of the 2002 Act. On the contrary, the exhortation for courts to undertake a balancing exercise which pits the pros and cons of each realistic option against the others was aimed precisely at discharging the court’s statutory duty under section 1. In particular, before making a decision relating to a child’s welfare, a court is required to have regard to, amongst other matters, the factors set out in the relevant ‘welfare checklist’. The evaluation of options described in Re B-S must undertaken with those factors in full focus.

56. Re B-S did not change the law. Re B-S was primarily directed to practice…

Website

For those who have not yet visited our Local Family Justice Board website (and I find it hard to believe that there are many!) may I encourage you to do so – www.llfjb.com. The feedback I have received has all been very positive – but we are always looking at ways to improve. If you have any suggestions to make then please let Heather Popley (No 5 Chambers) or Ben Mansfield (36 Bedford Row) know – or alternatively contact Justine Blackwell or Emma Holyoak.

One idea that is being considered is to invite willing volunteers to write articles on topical Family Law subjects. If you are interested in being a willing volunteer please contact Heather or Ben.

The monthly case law updater continues. The pool of contributors has widened. So, too, has the scope of the cases referred to. I understand that it is hoped that during 2015 it may be possible to include Court of Protection cases in the updater. Watch this space! I extend my thanks to those involved in producing the updater for their time and commitment.

Family Drugs and Alcohol Court

The concept of a Family Drugs and Alcohol Court was pioneered by District Judge Nick Creighton and others at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court at Wells Street. The FDAC has been evaluated by Brunel University. I attach a copy of their report. Those of you who have been reading the ‘Views from the President’s Chambers’ will know that the President is keen to explore the possibility of rolling out this model across the country. To that end, every Designated Family Judge has been tasked with the responsibility of exploring the possibility of setting up an FDAC in her/his area. I mention this so that you are aware that discussions locally are ongoing. We shall need to make a decision – no matter how provisional – in advance of the next President’s Conference in May 2015. The decision will be posted on the website.

Annual Conference

Our annual LLFJB Conference took place on 10th October. The theme of the conference was The Modern Family – Challenges, Choices and Opportunities. This was another successful conference. I thank all of the members of the education and training committee for their hard work in organising the conference. A report on the conference will appear on the website in the near future.

Carol Service

The first Leicester and Leicestershire Court’s Carol Service on 11th December was a big success. I thank all of those involved in organising it, in taking part in it, and in coming along to enjoy it. Half of the offering taken at the Carol Service will be donated to the Rainbows Children’s Hospice. Thank you for your generosity.

Quiet Room

Multi-faith Quiet rooms/Prayer rooms are very common. They are available in places such as hospitals, airports and shopping centres. Before my appointment to the Circuit Bench in 2004, I was a District Judge in Leeds for nine years. Whilst in Leeds a room was set aside in the Courthouse for use as a designated space to be used by people of all faiths and of none for prayer or simply for quiet reflection. The room was well-used and much appreciated by those who did make use of it. I hope that during the course of 2015 a similar facility will be made available in Leicester. Watch this space!

6

December 2014