Reading Borough Council v Miss Angela D & Ors

Information from private family proceedings may be communicated to a police officer serving in a child-protection role where the communication furthers child protection. That role includes criminal investigation and prosecution concerning offences against a child. The Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005 distinguish between information and the documents containing it. Information may be used for child-protection and criminal-investigation purposes. A document filed with the family court remains under the court’s control, and a confidential document requires permission before it is used. A criminal defence lawyer is not entitled to disclosure under the relevant rule without the family court’s permission.

The court determined an application by the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police concerning five documents given to a police officer by a local-authority social worker during care proceedings. The documents included medical reports and statements prepared for the family case. The officer served both in a child-protection unit and in the criminal investigation arising from the child’s serious injuries.

The parties substantially agreed that communication of the information was lawful. The remaining issues were whether the officer could use the information and documents for criminal-investigation purposes, whether court permission was required, the effect of partial waiver of legal professional privilege, and the scope of disclosure to a criminal defence lawyer.

1. Information and documents. The 2005 Rules permit communication of information relating to private family proceedings to a police officer serving in a child-protection unit. The expression “acting in furtherance of the protection of children” includes investigation and prosecution of offences against a child. The same officer may therefore use the information for both child-protection and criminal-investigation purposes.
2. The Rules preserve the distinction between information and documents. Information contained in a document may be communicated and used under the rule. The document itself remains confidential. A document filed with the family court is subject to that court’s control, while an unfiled confidential document also requires permission before it is used. Permission was granted for the five documents in this case.
3. The court rejected the Police’s submission that no permission was needed to use the documents. That submission confused information with documents. Once documents are disclosed, their use in another court is for that court to determine.
4. The court rejected the narrower construction that the information could be used only for child protection and not for criminal investigation. The language and purpose of the Rules supported the wider construction.
5. Permission to use confidential material is governed by a fact-sensitive balancing exercise. Relevant considerations include the welfare of the children, confidentiality, frankness, the administration of justice, inter-agency co-operation, the seriousness and relevance of the alleged offence, section 98 of the Children Act 1989, fairness and any prior disclosure. Disclosure should be withheld only in exceptional circumstances where the public interest in prosecution is engaged.
6. The father’s disclosure of his unsigned statement effected only a limited waiver of privilege for the meeting at which it was disclosed. It did not amount to a general waiver: B v Auckland District Law Society (2003) 2 AC 736.
7. A criminal defence lawyer is neither a legal representative instructed for a party in the family proceedings nor a professional legal adviser within rule 10.20A(2). Disclosure to that lawyer therefore requires the family court’s permission.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.