A LOCAL AUTHORITY v J

Third-party disclosure in public law children proceedings must be necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs. An order must identify the documents or classes of documents required with sufficient precision. Applications directed to HMPPS should ordinarily be served both on HMPPS and the Government Legal Department, while correspondence should remain with HMPPS. Requests for rolling disclosure should be explicit. Without-notice applications should generally be avoided except in genuine emergencies. Parties should consider whether the proposed disclosure can first be clarified with the offender, but the court should not rely solely on the offender’s co-operation where formal third-party disclosure is appropriate.

These first-instance public law proceedings concerned four children and the risk arising from their father’s terrorist convictions, release on licence and continuing religious and political ideology. The Family Court had directed disclosure from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to inform assessment by the parties, the court and a jointly instructed psychologist.

The Secretary of State for Justice complied with the further disclosure direction but invited the court to give general guidance on managing future third-party disclosure requests to HMPPS and similar criminal justice bodies. The central issues concerned service, the framing and timing of requests, rolling disclosure, the use of summaries of the proceedings, and without-notice applications.

1. Disclosure test. Under Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 21.2, the court may order third-party disclosure only where it is necessary to dispose fairly of the proceedings or to save costs. The order must specify the documents or classes of documents to be disclosed.
2. Practical procedure. Applications and orders seeking disclosure from HMPPS should ordinarily be served on the Secretary of State for Justice through the Government Legal Department’s new proceedings inbox, as well as on HMPPS, which remains the primary and obligatory recipient. Rolling disclosure should be expressly identified. Ordinary correspondence should continue to be sent exclusively to HMPPS.
3. Information accompanying requests. Parties should seek the court’s permission before providing a concise summary of the issues and relevant factual information, in view of r 12.72–75 and PD12G of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. A reporting restriction order may be appropriate to protect the confidentiality of that information.
4. Scope and co-operation. Requests should be specific, having regard to the time required to locate, redact and review material, including security-sensitive information and documents generated through dynamic risk assessment. Exploring what documents the offender holds may be a useful first step, but the court may require formal disclosure from the third party.
5. Without notice. Without-notice applications contemplated by r 21.2 should generally be avoided, save in cases of genuine emergency. The proposals for future applications were adopted.

The judgment emphasised the importance of co-operation and co-ordination between the family and criminal justice systems in achieving informed decision-making for children.