Venables, Re (No 2

Case-management directions should be proportionate to the issues requiring determination. A government department need not be joined, or required to give evidence, where no proper basis for doing so has been established. The Attorney General may discharge his public-interest role through submissions rather than evidence. Independent counsel as a friend of the court is unnecessary where the court already has full adversarial argument and public-interest submissions.

Directions for private hearings, restrictions on access to evidence, or secure data handling require specific justification. The ordinary principle is that proceedings are conducted in public, subject to privacy for particularly sensitive material where necessary.

The applicants sought directions in proceedings concerning the continuation or variation of an injunction relating to the person previously known as Jon Venables. They sought, among other matters, joinder of the Secretary of State for Justice, evidence from the Attorney General, appointment of independent counsel, private hearings, restrictions on access to evidence and secure data-handling arrangements.

The court had previously given directions in Re the person previously known as Jon Venables; Application by Ralph Stephen Bulger and James Patrick Bulger [2018] EWHC 1037 (Fam). The present hearing concerned the further procedural steps required before the final hearing.

1. The application for joinder of the Secretary of State for Justice, and for a direction requiring him to file evidence, was refused. The applicants had identified no proper basis for either order. The Ministry of Justice could file evidence if it wished, including evidence concerning the current risk to JV.
2. The Attorney General was not required to file evidence. His role as guardian of the public interest could properly be fulfilled by written submissions.
3. Appointment of independent counsel as a friend of the court was unnecessary. The court would have full adversarial argument from the parties and the Attorney General’s public-interest submissions.
4. The proceedings were to remain in public. This reflected the general principle of open justice and the public-interest nature of the proceedings. The trial judge could hear particular parts in private if sensitive material made that necessary. Evidence would not be available to non-parties before the final hearing, and any later restraint on dissemination could be addressed by the trial judge.
5. The request for secure data handling was refused. Nothing in the case was so out of the ordinary as to justify that unusual process.
6. Directions were made permitting identified witness evidence and written submissions, requiring compliance with PD27A, and listing a two-day final hearing before the President of the Family Division. Costs were in the case.

First-instance case-management decision. The judgment refers to earlier directions in Re the person previously known as Jon Venables; Application by Ralph Stephen Bulger and James Patrick Bulger [2018] EWHC 1037 (Fam).