Meeting Summaries
The Family Justice Council Executive Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 28th February 2005 in room W15 Royal Courts of Justice
Present:
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Thorpe (Chairman)
Her Honour Judge Newton
Jane Booth
Bruce Clark
Terry Grange
Sheridan Greenland
Elaine Laken
Mark Ormerod
Dr Rosalyn Proops
Laura Russell (Secretary)
Announcements and apologies
1. Apologies were received form Paul Clark and Khatun Sapnara.
Minutes from the last meeting: 22 November 2004
2. The minutes were approved.
Matters arising
3.1
Item 2 Drafting of the Business Plan Objectives
It was agreed that this should be completed by the 21 March 2005. Laura would inform Sam Sprague who was drafting the objectives.
Item 3
Letter to each DFJ Letter sent to all DFJs 16 November 2004.
Item 4
Expert Training
This item had been over taken by the work of the Expert Working Group and was ongoing. Thorpe LJ had met with Dr Glaser and Judge Pearlman to discuss accreditation. It was agreed that the Experts Working Group be expanded to include a psychologist and that they would look at the question of accreditation. Most difficulties appear to be in the mental health area rather than in the physical health area.
Dr Proops said that a lot of work had already been done and agreed that there was a need for a psychologist. Another group that also needed to be considered was nurses, health visitors and social workers. The Royal College of Nurses needed to be consulted.
Thorpe LJ said that he was not against this in principle but in practice one did not get nurses giving expert evidence although they did give evidence.
Dr Proops said that if looking at the problem of recruitment and one part of this problem was quality and quantity then if we support, train and use front line staff eventually there will be less of a problem.
Thorpe LJ said that there also needed to be outreach to radiologists, pathologists and ophthalmologists.
Judge Newton commented that her circuit had the greatest use of experts in court cases and asked what a judge should do if all the parties agreed on experts being appointed. It was agreed that there is still huge scope for judicial training and that it would be useful for this to be an item at the President's Conference in May.
Elaine Laken said that it would be useful to know what areas a competent social worker and guardian were expected to be experts in.
Jane Booth said that work in this area was ongoing.
Elaine Laken said that there had been interest in the checklist that Dr Glaser had produced and wanted to know if she could start using it.
Thorpe LJ said that in Stephen Cobb QC's proposal to the protocol judges he had defined, for inclusion in appendix C, standard questions. These had followed those questions proposed by Dr Glaser.
Elaine Laken asked if it was possible to see this document.
Thorpe LJ said he could see any reason why not and that there was no reason why Elaine could not start adopting the standard question now and do a pilot in her area.
Dr Proops said that it was something that could easily be changed into something that health could use and that maybe it should be an agenda item for local FJCs.
Judge Newton asked if she could show the mapping paper to the Experts Witness Initiative in Manchester.
Thorpe LJ agreed.
Action:
Proposal to protocol judges to be circulated to members
Thorpe LJ to speak to Sumner J re agenda item for President's Conference
Item 5
Professor Masson's paper
This paper was circulated to all members. No action was agreed as to the next step re the paper.
Item 6
FJC member's T & S Expenses
Khatun Sapnara had intended to speak on this item but was unable to attend the meeting. Item carried over to the next meeting on 13 June 2005
Elaine Laken said that if a member was appointed to the Council in their own right why should their organisation be expected to pay.
Thorpe LJ said that if we are asking members on local FJCs to get their organisation to pay their expenses then we need to watch ourselves.
Jane Booth agreed that it was difficult as some depending on who you were representing some paid and some did not.
Action: Item carried forward
Item 8
Finance for local FJCs
Mark Ormerod said he was hopeful that there would be funding. It had not been signed and sealed but he was reasonably confident. He was working on the basis that local chairs would get 2 days admin support a week. It was intended that the budget be held centrally by FJC but managed locally.
Thorpe LJ said that some senior judges were using the uncertainty over the budget as a reason to do nothing.
Mark Ormerod said that Paul Jackson had been round to the judges and that he would be able to provide feedback.
Judge Newton said that Manchester would be ready to launch by April.
Judge Newton asked if Paul Jackson was going to produce a report as it would be helpful to see it if he did.
Thorpe LJ said that he had a meeting at 9.30 am with Paul and Cara tomorrow and would ask him then.
Judge Newton asked if Thorpe LJ had seen the emails from Judge Donald Hamilton. Thorpe LJ replied that he had not but was attending a conference on Monday and would chat with him then. Judge Newton agreed to copy the emails to Thorpe LJ.
Thorpe LJ said that once a policy decision had been taken the information need to be got out as quickly as possible.
Mark Ormerod suggested that a letter be sent to all the chairs.
Thorpe LJ said that this was an excellent idea and asked that when the time was ripe who would prepare the letter?
Mark Ormerod said that he would prepare the letter and circulate it to Thorpe LJ, Judge Newton, Area Directors and anyone else it was thought should receive it.
Elaine suggested that they should also be sent the FJC action plan and business plan.
Elaine Laken said that this should then follow on quickly and cover membership.
Dr Proops asked if she could be copied into any letter.
Mark Ormerod said that it might be best if the whole package went out at once.
Judge Newton said that people should be told broadly about the budget with further information after the meeting on 18 April.
Action: Dr Proops to be copied into to any letter sent to local FJCs re membership
Item 10.1
Any other business
It was agreed that this item would not be pursued.
Item 10.2
Length of FJC budget
Mark Ormerod confirmed that the budget runs to 31 March 2005.
Experts working group
4. Thorpe LJ said that this had been widely circulated and that it should be of extreme utility to lots of people.
Dr Proops asked if Sally Fields paper needed to be included?
Terry Grange said that this was just a paper updating people on what was going on.
Mark Ormerod said that the documents just needed to be cross checked.
Thorpe LJ said that we just had to make sure that Stephen Cobb QC had seen the paper and that he did not want to make any alterations.
Elaine Laken asked how we were communicating the information down to the local FJCs.
Thorpe LJ said as yet we were not. Outreach was waiting until the local FJC came on line. Concern was expressed at the delay in the circulation of the FJC minutes.
Elaine Laken said that our minutes should be sent to local FJCs. She also asked if a running list could be produced on papers and action points.
ACTION: Secretariat to produce a running list on papers and action points
Charles Prest's letter re. checks on experts instructed in children cases
7. Sheridan Greenland questioned whether experts were already checked by their employer. Jane Booth replied that they were not.
Dr Proops said that from 2000 all health professionals are checked but there is no universal retrospective system in place.
Thorpe LJ asked that when the expert group looked at accreditation that they also looked at this issue.
Judge Newton said that Bar and solicitors are not employed in a childcare position.
Sheridan Greenland asked if there were any situations when they would be alone with a child. Jane Booth said that they might if a Children Guardian was not appointed.
Action: Expert sub-committee to look at the issue of checks on experts
A single civil court
5. Thorpe LJ informed the committee that this was an important consultation paper that suggested major gains in re-organisation of civil justice delivery i.e. doing away with the 3 divisions of the High Court and merge them into one for a new look. There are repercussions for family justice but this may be an opportunity to mould something close to a family court.
Thorpe LJ said that the President and the Private Office had produced a draft response and it was to be circulated to FJC members with any comments to be sent to Laura by 5th April. The closing date for the consultation is the end of April.
Elaine Laken asked if this fitted in with Sheridan's paper. Sheridan said that it did and that her paper had already been widely circulated. Elaine Laken suggested that any responses to Sheridan Greenland's paper should be sent in by the same date either to Laura or directly to Sheridan.
Action: Draft response to A Single Civil Court to be circulated to all FJC members with a request for comments by 5th April along with any comments regarding Sheridan Greenland's paper.
Since the meeting the draft response has been withdrawn and will therefore not be circulated
Disclosure consultation paper
6. Mark Ormerod said that this consultation paper had come about as a result of a judgment on privacy in family proceedings. This is a consultation on what documents can be seen.
Elaine Laken said that her paper for the last FJC meeting was relevant to this but had not been dealt with. Thorpe LJ asked if anything could be done today? Elaine Laken replied that Ian Hamilton thought that there was to be an exchange of minutes.
Thorpe LJ asked if someone would agree to be a go between, Elaine Laken agreed.
Terry Grange said that the police did not think that the consultation paper went far enough. He said that he would be responding to item 4 that the police cannot do their job properly without copies of the orders.
Thorpe LJ asked what the FJC or Executive Committee should be doing?
Elaine Laken replied that all individual organisations were responding and that the FJC need not respond.
Dr Proops asked if we needed to know who the consultation paper had been sent to. Mark Ormerod said that he could find out and anyone was entitled to have a copy.
Judge Newton commented that the paper did not respond to the specific rules that prevent disclosure.
Jane Booth said that they had raised how it linked with DfES with regard to information sharing.
Thorpe LJ said that he thought it was bizarre that Rule 4.23 was not up front. He thought that it was agreed that Rule 4.23 judicially had to be radically expanded. It was bizarre that the restrictions were not there with the question to what extent they should be relaxed.
Judge Newton said that the Council of Circuit Judges was doing a brief response. They will say that one can disclose the issue without identifying the child.
Home Office policy concerning the approache to family proceedings
8. Thorpe LJ referred to a letter sent by Charles J to the President.
Judge Newton said that a lot of time and work was spent on doing assessments when a person may be deported tomorrow.
Thorpe LJ asked the committee what they thought Charles J wanted it to do. Judge Newton replied that she thought that Charles J wanted the Home Office to have a clear policy on whether they leave the welfare of the child to the court and that immigration would depend on that or not.
Judge Newton said that we should ask the Home Office to tell us the result of the policy review.
Thorpe LJ said that it looked as if the matter should not be dropped and that a clear statement on Home Office Policy.
Mark Ormerod said that it might be more effective to write to Julia Dolby direct.
Thorpe LJ said that it should say that we had considered the letter from Alice Snelling and appreciate the review is ongoing but would like to know how long it was before we were likely to know. Also with reference to the Children's task force who had conduct of policy and what are the terms of reference and mechanism for interested parties to contribute. Certainly there is a likely possibility that the FJC, CAFCASS and others might wish to express a view. Ask for a response by the 18 April 2005.
Any other business
9.1 Thorpe LJ discussed whether all the comments that Paul Clark had sent in had been consider, they had.
9.2 Thorpe LJ referred the meeting to the paper from Corrine May-Chahal and asked if there was anything we could usefully do.
Jane Booth said that she had already sent some comments back to Corrine.
Judge Newton said that she was hoping to get a proposal for the next step.
Dr Proops said that it appeared to be based on Every Child Matters.
Thorpe LJ said that we should invite Corrine May-Chahal to take the paper a step further for the next FJC meeting.
Judge Newton said that she thought practical proposals were being dealt with Peter and she was not sure how this fitted in. Thorpe LJ said that it would be helpful if the Executive Committee put questions to her and Peter and then they could report to the next FJC meeting.
Dr Proops raised three points. Firstly it would be helpful if the local FJC had a summary paper, secondly through Corrine how do we know which specific ones to look at. Thirdly ask about the business of bringing young people into the process.
Elaine Laken asked how the local FJC s would take this forward?
Judge Newton said that local FJCs might not need to do that as they may already exist in another group.
Dr Proops said that Paul Clark's Every Child Initiative was good. Thorpe LJ said that hopefully the group would do more work on this.
Dr Proops suggested that her and Jane Booth produce a 1 page document on how this fits into local FJCs and pass this to Paul for comment. This was agreed.
Action: Dr Proops and Jane Booth to produce a 1 page document for consideration by Paul Clark
9.3 Thorpe LJ said that he had received an email from Judge Mornington stating that on the Domestic Violence front she would like to form a Domestic Violence Sub-Committee to up date the FJC and then cascade down to the local FJCs. Khatun Sapnara and Terry Grange had agreed to be on this sub-committee.
Thorpe LJ said that he had thanked Judge Mornington for her email and had said that he would put it before the Executive Committee. Thorpe LJ said that he thought the committee should agree to the group. Agreed.
9.4 Thorpe LJ said that every support should be given to the local FJCs launch. He had written to every DFJ and so much depended on personal relationships. Of the 50 judges that were written to he had now received 41 helpful and supportive letters. The contingent of indifference was relatively small. The meetings that he had had with Paul Jackson and Cara Mitchell-Langford had been very informative.
Elaine Laken asked if there was an official line about the launch of the local FJCs.
Thorpe LJ said that it was to be the 1 April or as close to that date as possible but certainly by September 2005.
Sheridan Greenland said that Thomas LJ said that he was not aware of any family work aligning with UA and asked Thorpe LJ to speak to him.
Expert training sub-committee
9.5 Thorpe LJ said that he was trying to get support with regards to training for specialist registrars. Progress at times seemed slow but he hoped that once it was firmly agreed what was being offered that there would be co-operation between service suppliers and recipients.
It was intended that the group would consist of Thorpe LJ, a FLBA and Solicitor representative, a representative from the Royal College of Psychiatry, Paediatricians and Association of British Psychologists. This group would decide what was to be offered and how it could help. Thorpe LJ also suggested that either Dr Proops or Dr Hamilton be the link person between the FJC and the Royal Colleges.
Dr Proops said that the group should look at the purpose, function and process of the mini pupillage scheme.
Judge Newton said that once a frame work was in place it would be useful to see as then it could be replicated in the North West. Dr Proops agreed.
Thorpe LJ said that he would ask Laura Russell to set up a meeting in early April with the appropriate representatives.
Dr Proops said that it would be useful for people to have something to look at in advance of the meeting.
Thorpe LJ said that that would not be too difficult and to use the minutes of his meeting on 25 January and to say what steps need to be taken to deliver these points throughout the jurisdiction without delay. He would approach Dr Glaser and Dr Shaw and enquire with regard to an adult psychiatrist representative.
Action: Laura in consultation with Thorpe LJ to arrange a meeting in early April of the Expert Training Sub-Committee
9.6 Thorpe LJ informed the meeting that there had been two meetings of the Dartington Working Group and that the programme had now been agreed. Invites to speakers were going out next week and after that letters to the delegates. There were at least 40 places to offer to delegates and any suggestions re delegates would be welcomed. Delegates would be chosen form FJC members and the Interdisciplinary Committee.
Judge Newton suggested Baroness Ashton. Mark Ormerod thought that if she attended she would want to say something. Thorpe LJ said this would not be a problem.
Bruce said that it was more likely to be heavily subscribed and we should therefore check that we had a balance that we were comfortable with and that this should match the background of the FJC.
Thorpe LJ said that the provisional view was that delegates would not be out boarded, numbers would be kept to about 60.
Thorpe LJ said that Malcolm Welsh was the administrator and that Jordans would put on a reception and publish the papers. He had already engaged a rapporteur from Queen Elizabeth Buildings.
9.7 Thorpe LJ informed the meeting that he was heavily involved in the International Conference in June and that there was lots of work happening on the International front.
Date of next meeting
10. The next Executive Committee meetings were fixed for 13 June 2005, 19 September 2005 and 5 December 2005 all meetings to start at 2 pm, venue to be confirmed.
Laura Russell
Secretary
4 March 2005
Tel: 020 7947 7950
Fax: 020 7947 7875
Email: Laura Russell