C (Children : Covid-19: Representation)

C (Children : Covid-19: Representation)

The arrangements for the resumed hybrid hearing, with the mother’s leading counsel participating remotely, did not breach the mother’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR. The judge’s decision to proceed in June, rather than adjourn to September, was a proper exercise of discretion, balancing the rights of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Local Authority; Respondent: Father 1; Respondent: Father 2; Respondent: Children (by their Children’s Guardian); Intervener: Intervener
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (care Proceedings Fact Finding) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) on Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 6 ECHR Right to Fair Trial, Article 8 ECHR Right to Family Life, Case Management, Hybrid/remote Hearings, Covid 19 Protocols
Family Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Article 6 ECHR Right to Fair Trial Article 8 ECHR Right to Family Life Case Management Hybrid/remote Hearings Covid 19 Protocols

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mother

Appellant

Local Authority

Respondent

Father 1

Respondent

Father 2

Respondent

Children (by their Children’s Guardian)

Respondent

Intervener

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (care Proceedings Fact Finding) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) on Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuation of a hybrid hearing, with the mother's leading counsel unable to attend in person due to Covid-19 shielding, breaches the mother's right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to properly balance the Article 6 and Article 8 rights of the parties, particularly the mother and the children.
  3. 3 Whether the arrangements for the hearing created an inequality of arms or the appearance of unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements for the resumed hybrid hearing, with the mother’s leading counsel participating remotely, did not breach the mother’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR. The judge’s decision to proceed in June, rather than adjourn to September, was a proper exercise of discretion, balancing the rights of all parties and the need for timely resolution for the children. The absence of leading counsel in person did not create a substantial disadvantage or appearance of unfairness sufficient to render the proceedings unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The fact-finding hearing will proceed in June 2020 as directed by the High Court.