https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9866745/Justice-fears-father-sentenced-secret-ruling.htmlJustice fears as father is sentenced in secret ruling: Man gets 15-months suspended prison term at hearing blasted by critics as return to secrecy in family courts
15-month suspended sentence was delivered anonymously despite firm rules
Ruling came after he defied judge's order to stop making contact with sons
It appears to run directly against open justice rules established eight years ago
By Steve Doughty for the Daily Mail
Published: 23:32, 5 August 2021 | Updated: 17:06, 6 August 2021
A father of three was sentenced to prison at a hearing described by campaigners as a return to secrecy in the family courts. The 15-month suspended sentence was delivered anonymously despite firm rules to judges they should never give prison or suspended terms without naming the individual. The ruling came after the man repeatedly defied a judge's order to stop trying to make contact with his sons. Open justice campaigners criticised the decision and yesterday senior judges launched an inquiry into the suppression of the father's name. The ruling by Judge Gillian Matthews QC appears to run directly against open justice rules established eight years ago that say no adult should be handed a prison sentence in the family courts without being publicly named. The order that family courts and the linked Court of Protection should stop sending adults to jail in secret was laid down in 2013 after the Daily Mail exposed the case of Wanda Maddocks a woman sentenced to jail anonymously after she tried to remove her father from a care home where she thought his life was in danger. Officials said Judge Matthews' decision would be removed from the published roll of court rulings until she had explained why the sentencing was anonymous. In her sentencing, Judge Matthews identified the father only as JE and her ruling is headed: 'Anonymisation applies.'
She said the 'judgment was delivered in private,' and that 'the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved'. Judge Matthews said the father had repeatedly tried to contact his children despite a court ruling that he should not do so. She added he had been banned from phone contact following 'wild and inappropriate comments in his letters to the boys' and that he had tried to contact them indirectly through a friend. Her sentence follows an earlier nine-month prison term imposed on the father in December 2019 after he snatched the three boys from their mother. The children were taken back from him by police who stopped his Mercedes on the M4. At the 2019 sentencing, Judge Matthews did allow him to be publicly named. In her new ruling, given in Middlesbrough, the judge imposed a 15-month suspended sentence which included nine months for contempt of court in 2019 and six months for attempts to contact the children last year and to pass them a SIM card earlier this year. The father will be taken directly to jail if he makes any attempt to contact his sons over the next two years. The judge added that his attempt to use another child to contact his sons was 'wicked'. The father, who has consistently failed to co-operate with the court, was not present. Family courts have historically been conducted in secret but have allowed a measure of public scrutiny over the past decade following a series of scandals. However, under the current chief family judge, president of the family division Sir Andrew McFarlane, secrecy rules intended to protect children from being publicly identified have been tightened. When family court judgments are published, social workers, medical witnesses and even the names of local councils are now suppressed. Transparency campaigner John Hemming said: 'We had hoped that the principle of open justice had been established. A few years ago, family judges were instructed that the principle applied and they cannot send people to prison without naming them. Now that is taken away. It is a disgrace that people can be sent to jail anonymously and not for their own benefit. This undermines open justice and public confidence in the law.'
