CFP-Victory against secret courts - Université de Rennes 1

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be
made public after Mail campaign
By Steve Doughty, www.dailymail.com,16 January 2014
1) Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people
forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny. Councils applying to take
children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak
of anonymity. Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should
anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.
2) The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years. They
also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed
a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed
doors.
3) The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir
James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be
publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not. Only children and adults caught up in
disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.
4) The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from
complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice. Sir James said in guidance sent to judges
that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of
judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection. He added: ‘At present too few judgments are
made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done
by judges in its name.’
5) The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour
government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a
woman in secret and without publishing any record. A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda
Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been
ordered to stay. Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She
served six weeks. In December we revealed how an Italian mother who had been forced by the Court
of Protection to have a caesarean begged a family court judge in vain to allow her to keep her baby.
Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.
6) Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order
them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law. This makes it contempt of
court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in
prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted.
7) In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light
in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed
the idea. Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of
Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’.
8) Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes
responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3. He added that
further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary
legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’ He said that current rules
[may] be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court
concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’
At last! Victory on secret courts
VOCABULARY
Title
ruling: jugement
§1
care home ≈ foyer de la DDASS
scrutiny: examen minutieux, rigoureux
council: conseil municipal
to apply to do sthg: demander la permission de
to take a child into care: placer un enfant
the cloak of anonymity: le voile de l'anonymat
to name: nommer, citer
wrongdoing: méfaits
§2
landmark: historique
to surround: entourer
to expose: dénoncer
behind closed doors: à huis clos
§3
to lay down: énoncer
Family Division: L'une des trois chambres de la haute cour de justice (Family Division,
Queen's Bench Division, Chancery Division)
to publicise: rendre public
compelling reasons: raisons impérieuses
to be caught up in a dispute: être impliqué dans un différends
§4
guidelines: indications, conseils, directives
secrecy: secret
guidance: conseils, information, indications
to add: ajouter
to make sthg available: mettre qq chose à disposition de
§5
to set up: établir
to deal with: gérer, traiter
record: rapport, procès-verbal, enregistrement
contempt of court: outrage à la cour
to serve a (custodial) sentence: purger une peine (d'emprisonnement)
to have a caesarean: subir une césarienne
to beg sb to: supplier qq de
§6
currently: à l'heure actuelle
to remove a child from: retirer un enfant à
custody: garde
attempt: tentative
to thwart: contrecarrer, contrarier
PTO
§7
Lord Chancellor: Ministre de la justice (GB)
charity: organisation caritative
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children): association de
protection de l'enfance
National Children’s Bureau: an organisation which promotes the interests and well-being of
all children and young people
to push a Bill through: réussir à faire voter une loi
hearing: audience
§8
to take over (from sb): remplacer qq
further: supplémentaire
practice directions: instructions pratiques
to make findings against sb: formuler des conclusions préjudiciables/ défavorables à
The Court of Protection
The justice.gov.uk website describes the Court of Protection as a specialist court for all
issues relating to people who lack capacity to make specific decisions.
The Court of Protection was created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It has
jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of people who it claims
lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Examples of personal welfare issues
determined by the court are decisions about where protected persons live, who they see and
how they are cared for.
The Court makes decisions and appoints deputies to make decisions in the best interests of
those who lack capacity to do so1.
The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is designed to protect and empower (permettre de
s'assumer) individuals who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about
their care and treatment. It is a law that applies to individuals aged 16 and over.
Examples of people who may lack capacity include those with:
•
•
•
•
•
•
dementia
a severe learning disability
a brain injury
a mental health condition
a stroke
unconsciousness caused by an anaesthetic or sudden accident
Courts are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and must
not act in a way that is incompatible with a right guaranteed under the European Convention
on Human Rights (section 6 Human Rights Act 1998).
However, cases involving children or the mentally incapacitated are subject to
restrictions: details of what goes on in the courtroom must be kept private:
1) Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 makes it a contempt of
court2 to publish a judgment in a family court case involving children or a judgment in a
Court of Protection case. Publication is possible only where either the judgment has been
delivered in public or the judge has authorised publication.
PTO
1
Deputies are usually close relatives or friends of the person who needs help making decisions. But
some people are paid to act as deputies, eg accountants, solicitors or representatives of the local
authority. The Court of Protection can also appoint a specialist deputy (called a ‘panel deputy’) from a
list of approved law firms and charities if no one else is available.
2
NB: The concept of contempt was established at common law as "an act or omission calculated to
interfere with the administration of justice". The common law is still the starting point for determining
what constitutes a contempt, and case law has established the powers of courts to deal with contempt.
2) Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 prevents the publication of the name of the
child or adult who is the subject of the proceedings. That protection applies to both family
courts and the court of protection but ceases to apply when the proceedings come to an end.
3) Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act [CYPA] 1933 prohibits
publication in a newspaper, sound and television broadcast of a name, address or school
calculated to identify a child or a picture of a child concerned in the proceedings, as a victim,
witness or defendant. Identification through other means eg social media is not covered.
NB: The exception to the open justice principle relates also to youth court proceedings,
which by statute are not open to the public. A youth court is a special type of magistrates’
court for people aged between 10 and 17. A youth court The court can give a range of
sentences including community sentences, Detention and Training Orders carried out in
secure centres for young people.
The protection provided by these discretionary provisions is subject to and should be
interpreted in accordance with the rights contained in the European Convention of Human
Rights (Annex 1) and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
(UNCRC) (Annex 2).
Also, any decision to lift reporting restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and there
must be a pressing social need for it (Article 10 ECHR).
La question de l’anonymisation des décisions de justice
Emmanuel Lesueur de Givry, conseiller à la Cour de cassation, directeur du service de
documentation et d’études.
1) Si, pendant une trentaine d’années, le nom des parties apparaît fréquemment dans les
contentieux de l’état des personnes (filiation naturelle ou adultérine, divorce, adoption), de la
responsabilité professionnelle ou de la discipline des notaires, des avocats, des huissiers, des
commissaires-priseurs, des médecins et chirurgiens, de la diffamation par voie de presse, les
interdictions légales progressivement édictées de révéler l’identité des parties ou certaines
catégories d’entre elles (mineurs, victimes d’agressions sexuelles) et principalement celles
liées à l’état des personnes (notamment au divorce) sont, sauf omission, strictement respectées
dans les arrêts publiés au bulletin.
2) On notera cependant, en 1989, l’absence d’anonymisation - certes non prévue par les textes
spéciaux - dans un arrêt portant sur un problème de transsexualité. Enfin, se manifeste parfois
le souci de faire application de l’article 31, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 6 janvier 1978 concernant
les données nominatives faisant apparaître les origines raciales ou les opinions politiques,
philosophiques ou religieuses ou les appartenances syndicales ou les moeurs des personnes.
3) Au cours de ces dernières années, l’élargissement du champ de l’anonymisation à la
lumière de la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés
fondamentales (art. 8) et des articles 9 et 9-1 du Code civil relatifs à la vie privée et à la
présomption d’innocence, a conduit à ne pas mentionner le nom de justiciables en présence de
litiges concernant les convictions religieuses, le droit à l’image, ou l’état de concubinage.
4) D'un autre point de vue, est aujourd’hui pratiquée une large anonymisation en matière de
récusation et de suspicion légitime, de responsabilité pour faute professionnelle des avocats,
officiers publics et/ou ministériels.
5) La matière de la responsabilité médicale fait aussi l’objet d’une attention particulière
parfois reprochée par certains (Affaire Perruche) de même que le droit du licenciement
lorsque le salarié est licencié pour avoir commis une infraction pénale. [...]
6) On relèvera que l’anonymisation ne porte pas en l’état, sur l’identité des personnes
morales.
7) Telle qu’elle est ainsi pratiquée, l’anonymisation, même si elle est parfois qualifiée
d’exemplaire, n’est pas pleinement satisfaisante. Certes, principalement centrée dans un
premier temps sur l’état des personnes, elle prend aujourd’hui davantage en compte la vie
privée (convictions personnelles, droits de la personnalité) mais, sauf exceptions, elle ne porte
pas sur les contentieux social et commercial contenant souvent des données personnelles qui,
détournées de leur finalité, sont susceptibles de préjudicier aux justiciables.
https://www.courdecassation.fr/