England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice
		12th October 2016

MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:

1. There is before me an application in prescribed Form N244 which was issued by the Central Bedfordshire Council on 22^nd August 2016 to commit each of Simon Andrew Markwick and Tracey Anne Markwick to prison for contempt of court. As this is an application to commit to prison for contempt, it was necessary that I should hear it entirely in public, as I do. Further, it is necessary that I give a brief judgment explaining publicly why I am dismissing that application, as I am now also doing.
2. The essential factual background is that Mr and Mrs. Markwick, who are a husband and wife, are the paternal grandparents of two children now aged four and three. There have been care proceedings in relation to those children which culminated in care and then placement for adoption orders being made in relation to each child about a year ago. Attempts were made to appeal those decisions which were finally rejected by a judge in the Court of Appeal in early February 2016.
3. Shortly after that, a document was circulated, apparently by Mr and Mrs. Markwick, headed "Public Notice Order". That document gave the full names and dates of birth of the two children concerned and was critical of the acts and decisions of numerous people including judges and social workers in the history of the application for, and the making of, the care and placement orders. Of course, anybody in a free society is fully entitled publicly to complain about the manner in which local authorities and/or the legal system operate, but the concern of the local authority was that, by actually naming and identifying the children concerned, and indeed by referring to them as their own grandchildren, the activities of Mr and Mrs Markwick might tend to undermine the placement of the children with their prospective adopters. As a result, the Central Bedfordshire Council made an application to the High Court for a Reporting Restriction Order which was made by Keehan J on 29^th February 2016. The respondents to the application and the order included Mr and Mrs Markwick.
4. The central provision of the order is paragraph 15 which, in summary, prohibited the respondents (including, therefore, Mr and Mrs Markwick) from "facilitating or permitting" the publishing in a range of paper and electronic and online media:

"…the names and addresses of the children… or the mother, father or paternal grandparents… if, but only if, such publication is likely … to lead to the identification of any one of the children as being a child who has been the subject of care or adoption proceedings … or has been removed from the care of his parents…"

5. That order was personally served on each of Mr and Mrs Markwick.
6. During August 2016 the local authority learned that there was material upon the Facebook or similar social media websites of each of Mr and Mrs Markwick. Photo shots of the websites are exhibited to the witness statement of the social worker, Beverley Sorensen. On the face of it, these photo shots depict Facebook websites of Simon Markwick and Tracey Markwick respectively, whose names clearly appear on their respective Facebook sites. So far as I am aware, nowhere in the material exhibited by Beverley Sorensen is there any reference at all to the name or address of either child, but there are a number of photographs, which I infer to be photographs of the children, and there is text which refers to, "My two wonderful [grandchildren] stolen from loving grandparents by Central Bedfordshire Social Services for forced adoption…"
7. There was, therefore, on the face of it, linkage between the stated names of Simon Markwick and Tracey Marwick respectively and the photographs, and the proposition that the depicted children are their grandchildren and that the children are in some way scheduled to be adopted.
8. Central Bedfordshire Council were deeply concerned about the potential impact of this material upon the children and their prospective adoptive placements. As Beverley Sorensen stated at the end of her affidavit, "Whilst the placements are going well there is always a risk that such pressure and exposure increases the risk of disruption". As a result, the Central Bedfordshire Council issued the present application for committal. That has very recently been served on each of Mr Markwick and Mrs Markwick and they are personally present today.
9. By documents which they have placed before the court, they make very clear indeed, first, that they have been striving at short notice to obtain legal aid and have not been able to do so; second, that they firmly wish to defend the application to commit them to prison for contempt of court; and third, and very importantly, that it was not they themselves who placed this material upon their respective Facebook sites. They say that this was done by others and not by themselves and, accordingly, that they have a complete defence to the present application for committal. They say, further, that they have, in any event, ensured that all the material in question has already been removed from their respective Facebook sites, and that they will do their very best to ensure that no such material is placed upon their sites or in any way published directly or indirectly by them in the future.
10. Mrs. Raisa Saley, counsel who appears on behalf of Central Bedfordshire Council, says that researches have been done, including as recently as a few minutes before I began to deliver this judgment, which do indicate that there appears now to be absolutely no reference to these children or their adoption anywhere publicly available online. In those circumstances the Central Bedfordshire Council have stated that, in any event, they no longer wish to pursue the present application to commit Mr or Mrs Markwick to prison for contempt of court.
11. I wish to make crystal clear that I personally have given no consideration whatsoever to the merits of this matter and to whether the Central Bedfordshire Council could have been able to prove to the criminal standard of proof that either Mr or Mrs Markwick were themselves in breach of any of the terms or provisions of the Reporting Restriction Order. I would, in any event, have unquestionably allowed to Mr and Mrs Markwick an adjournment today in order to enable them to further seek and acquire proper legal representation in relation to so grave a matter as an application to commit them to prison for contempt of court. However, in view of the stated position of the Central Bedfordshire Council, it is obviously right and appropriate that this present application is brought to a complete end today. I will, accordingly, finally dismiss the application that was issued on 22^nd August 2016 to commit Simon Andrew Markwick and Tracey Anne Markwick to prison for contempt of court.
12. Further, it is clearly important in a situation such as this that a clear and hard line is drawn behind which no further application can ever be made. I gave to the Central Bedfordshire Council, and those present on their behalf today, an opportunity to check right up to the present moment whether currently there is any material at all anywhere online that they can discover which in any way, even arguably, offends or breaches the provisions of the Reporting Restriction Order. They have taken that opportunity and expressly confirmed that there is none.
13. Accordingly, I will add an additional provision to my order that the Central Bedfordshire Council cannot issue any further application to commit either Simon Andrew Markwick or Tracey Anne Markwick to prison for contempt of court which relies upon any act done or omitted to be done by him or her respectively earlier than 1 p.m. today, Wednesday 12^th October 2016. As it is now 12:47 p.m., it will be roughly 1 p.m. when this hearing draws to a close, so Mr and Mrs Markwick can leave this court room absolutely assured that there is not the slightest possibility of the Central Bedfordshire Council taking any future or further action in relation to anything at all which either of them has done or omitted to do up to the time they leave this court today.
14. They must, of course, clearly understand that if, having left this court today, they were then to do or omit to do some act or acts which did amount to disobedience to the Reporting Restriction Order, which will remain in force, then they would be liable to be faced with a fresh application to commit them to prison for contempt of court. Insofar as the past up to this moment is concerned, a complete line is now drawn.
    
__________