Family - disclosure of Social Enquiry Reports.
Before : |
Judy Marie O'Sullivan, Family Registrar, Family Division. |
|||
Between |
Z (the father) |
Applicant |
|
|
Sand |
Y (the mother) |
Respondent |
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MR BRIAN HEATH, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, ON BEHALF OF THE PROBATION SERVICE RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL ENQUIRY REPORTS
Mr Brian Heath, Chief Probation Officer present.
Advocate C. G. Hillier for the Applicant Father.
Mr Chris Langford (JFCAS Officer) present.
The mother did not appear and was not represented.
reasons
the registrar:
1. This is an application by Mr Brian Heath, Chief Probation officer, on behalf of the Jersey Probation and After Care Service that a Social Enquiry report ("SER") prepared on the applicant father and ordered to be disclosed into these proceedings by an order made on the 10th March, 2017, is not disclosed to the father and respondent mother.
2. I heard submissions from Mr Heath, Advocate Hillier on behalf of the father, and Mr Langford. The mother is abroad with the children and video conferencing facilities were made available so she could attend Court but she did not do so.
3. Mr Heath stated that there is no issue about SERS being disclosed to JFCAS officers. JFCAS Officers have access to probation records and no specific order is required about disclosure to JFCAS. However, disclosure of SERS to the parties in private law proceedings is a different matter, he said. This issue had arisen in another case heard by the Deputy Bailiff on the 9th December, 2016. There was no written judgment or practice direction but it was an application similar to this application, and disclosure was not ordered. He referred to a letter had been written by the Bailiff in March 2016 to Mr Mike Cutland, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, a copy of which annexed to Mr Heath's application, which states:-
"It seems to us there ought to be a uniform rule... that the reports are confidential to the Court and will not be disclosed."
4. SERS are prepared for sentencing in criminal proceedings and to be effective require openness and for the person involved knowing the information provided will not go any further. SERS are prepared for a specific hearing and with the aim of assisting the Court in sentencing. Mr Heath said there was no issue that the Probation Service is a part of the Royal Court. The Bailiff's view is that SERS should not be disclosed into other proceedings.
5. However, Mr Heath said that if a report is over a year old, a new report can be prepared by a Probation Officer which addresses the particular issues required by the Family Court. The Probation Service has been directed to provide an up-dated Risk Assessment for the Family Court. Alternatively or additionally a Probation Officer can be required to attend Court.
6. Advocate Hillier said that he had no submissions to make and was aware that Mr Langford had already considered the SER.
7. Mr Langford confirmed that he had full access to the SER. Based on the information provided and having considered matters, nothing will be gained by disclosing the SER. This is not a case where an updated report is required as the father will be undergoing a hair strand test and an alcohol assessment and will be attending the ADAPT course.
8. Having heard the submissions, including what Mr Heath said about the views of the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff, I order that the Jersey Probation and After Care Service is not required to provide a copy of the father's SER to the father and mother in these proceedings.
No Authorities