R (Children: Control of Court Documents)

A family court may control the possession and distribution of judgments and other documents filed in proceedings. The power derives from the court’s duties to secure a fair trial and protect affected persons’ Convention rights, and is recognised by the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

Parties ordinarily receive documents and judgments. A departure must be necessary and proportionate. The stricter requirement of necessity governing the withholding of information during proceedings does not invariably apply where a party receives the material information but is denied physical possession of sensitive documents.

The power continues after proceedings end. An order restricting disclosure binds a solicitor despite any duty otherwise owed to the client.

R intervened in care proceedings concerning his two sisters. After a fact-finding hearing, the judge found that he was a predatory paedophile who had raped one sister. Because the judgment and written submissions contained graphic sexual material, the judge prohibited R from possessing unredacted copies in prison. R instead received explanations, a summary and a redacted judgment.

R appealed from the West London Family Court. His jurisdictional ground was withdrawn after the parties considered rule 29 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The remaining issue was whether the judge had struck an erroneous balance between R’s need for the documents and the risk of harm through their possession or dissemination.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. A court hearing family proceedings has power to control the use, possession and distribution of documents filed for the proceedings. The power includes withholding documents from a party where necessary. It arises from the court’s legal duties to ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of persons affected by disclosure; it does not originate solely in the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 supports the power and structures its exercise.

2. Rules 29.12 and 29.13 establish a default that parties may obtain copies of filed documents and must be served with judgments and orders. Both defaults remain subject to the court’s directions. Rules 29.12–29.14 therefore removed any doubt about the jurisdiction to make the order.

3. Where information is withheld before or during a hearing, restriction is permissible only when strictly necessary. The court must rigorously examine the feared harm and counterbalance resulting disadvantages to preserve a fair trial. The present restriction was materially less intrusive: R received the working parts of the decision and a summary, while physical possession of graphic material was withheld. The applicable standard was that any departure from equal treatment of parties must be necessary and proportionate.

4. The judge identified every relevant factor and conducted a conspicuously careful balancing exercise. R had everything required to understand the findings. Withholding further material pursued the legitimate aim of preventing continuing abuse of the children and dissemination among other sexual offenders. The judge’s conclusion was sound, and the high threshold for appellate interference with an evaluative decision was not met.

5. The power continues after proceedings conclude. Information within filed documents remains under the court’s control, and a party does not own counsel’s written submissions merely because they were prepared on that party’s behalf. An order prohibiting disclosure binds the party’s solicitor and overrides any professional duty otherwise owed to the client.

6. The restriction was extended to every document filed in the proceedings, thereby resolving R’s later request for the trial bundle.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The jurisdictional ground was withdrawn. The remaining appeal was dismissed, and the restriction was extended to all documents filed in the proceedings.
2. West London Family Court: HHJ Oliver Jones directed that R should not possess the full judgment or written submissions. R was instead to receive a summary and an anonymised, redacted version of the judgment.