Sorry for the hiatus, but was on paternity leave after the wonderful Mrs McKenzie produced yet another beautiful baby McKenzie. I have been doting on my son, as new father’s should do.

I did keep one case in my list though; a Leave to Remove case at Circuit level in England. How I wish I hadn’t as I am thoroughly ashamed of what currently passes as binding precedent in the area of International Relocation.

Payne-v-Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 is supposedly the leading authority, and for those of you not familiar with the area you should read the case here. The latest case of note is Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 which was an unsuccessful permission to appeal hearing by a litigant in person father. There is a transcript of the judgement and some comment on the Family Law Week site here.The site contains the essential links, including an interesting article by Clare Renton here.

Case was listed for 2 full days and the father had to sit and listen to 2 days of evidence from mother and stepfather, who had already moved out to Australia (stepfather not mother and stepfather). The child was 8 rising 9 and had told CAFCASS on the six occasions she was spoken to by CAFCASS that she wanted to live with her dad. CAFCASS noted that she was bright and articulate.

Father of course was a litigant in person and I was granted a Right of Audience for the final hearing. Counsel was a male barrister who was dignified, knowledgeable and courteous. As seems to be the norm in England, there was no solicitor in attendance.

Leave to remove was granted, despite father having what I and others viewed to be a winnable case.

I can’t say much more as the case is soon to darken the doors of the Court of Appeal, and the N161 is being worked on at this moment.

I hope that the comments of Wall LJ who is now the President of the Family Division still stand where he said that:-

33…There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.

34. As I say, this is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a “compelling reason” for an appeal to be heard. The question, to my mind, is twofold: (1) has the time come to reconsider Payne v Payne; and (2) is this the right case? I propose to concentrate on the latter question, since in my judgment both have to answer “yes” if permission to appeal on this ground is to be granted.

I note with healthy scepticism that his Lordship did not answer the question posed in the first limb of his own test.  It does not follow from his comments that the now President supports a review of Payne, and even if he does he will likely be opposed by some other senior jurists as well as those groups with an ideological and vested interest, who are well resourced when it come to commissioning and producing ‘research’.

Who needs the final series of Lost when we have Lord Hamilton to keep us on the edge of our seats, not knowing what’s coming next?

First it was that McKenzie friends should sit behind and not beside the litigant in person…

In preparation for taking the short journey by ferry from Belfast to Stranraer to McKenzie friend, everyone in our office practised being ‘back seat drivers’ . If we had’ve continued with such legal athletics we would likely have ended up with neck strains, arms like Tyson and calf muscles like bison. Have you ever tried to lean forward holding 500 pages in a lever arch file? One of our guys suggested a fitness test should be compulsory if planning to work in Scotland. How we laughed!

Not content with the Herod-esque attempt to kill McKenzie friending in Scotland in its infancy, the legal elite in the person of Lord Hamilton decided that if they couldn’t stop McKenzie friending totally, they would discourage people from assisting personal litigants by making it law that McKenzie friends can’t receive payment for their services in Scotland.

Worryingly for those interested in true access to justice the restriction at 5 (iii) should mean that no-one can receive payment for McKenzie friending in Scotland…and I mean no-one. That would include employees of any of the many excellent Scottish groups that potentially provide services to litigants in person such as the CAB, as I fail to see how an employee of one of these organisations is exempt from 5 (iii)?

The no payment angle was part of Ian Hanger QC’s submission to the Committee, and I am sure the committee were delighted to see such a notable as the original McKenzie friend say ‘HE’S LAY – SO YOU CAN’T PAY!….

‘HURRAH!!’ must have come the paternal and protectionist noises from the massed ranks of the legal profession and their brother and sister judges. The beginning of the end for some of them had been postponed, and they had just been handed what they thought was the stake that would spear the evolutionary product of McKenzie friends -  the big bad LAY ADVOCATE – the previously unstoppable walking talking action man and woman with moving eyes and mouth.

If this ridiculous restriction on access to justice is allowed to stand in Scotland it will leave only the independently wealthy, retirees, dole-ites and students skiving off uni as potential McKenzie friends. Just as the establishment wants it – an uneducated or transient opposition, unlikely to ever get enough experience to have a strategic influence on the law. It will also mean that our trips to Stranraer will be for pleasure only.

A begrudging, bedraggled vested interest attempt at legal drafting? Prospect of being passed into law with 5 (iii) in its current form? In the negative integers I would say.

Perhaps Lord Hamilton might be assisted by what another extremely highly respected family judge (Mr Justice Munby) said at para. 54 of In the Matter of N (A Child) [2009] EWHC 2096 (Fam)

‘Dr Pelling may be unqualified but he is plainly highly knowledgeable and experienced in such matters and he is entitled to charge, if he can find clients willing to pay his fees, at an hourly rate which can hardly be said to be extravagant when contrasted with the fees one frequently finds being charged to privately paying clients in family cases.’

Had the old Mexican stand-off with Master Redpath yesterday (Thursday), who was sitting in room 2.21 at the High Court in Belfast.

His list had our client, who was a litigant in person listed for 9.30 with the rest of the mentions at call over. The Master and his office were well aware that I was there to assist my client as the client could not be there due to being out of the jurisdiction. The other side knew this as well.

We were never spoken to until after all the vocational lawyers (solicitors and counsel) had left, and then only by the Master’s clerk who came out asking was there anyone there for Mr X. We said we were there for Mr X and were informed that the matter was adjourned to the 25th February!! I asked whether costs were awarded and the clerk said they weren’t. At least that was something. That was at around 11.30, meaning we waited for over two full hours to hear that, and not once did anyone come out for us.

I accept that a litigant in person should not be in chambers to listen to everyone else’s business, and I also accept that taking the litigant in person in first would only add to the costs of the multitude of other clients.

Why not have a list for litigants in person that actually says the time they will get their chance to go in and see the judge or master? If the list had’ve said Mr and Mrs X at 1130 we would not have turned up at 9.30. Same goes if one of the parties is represented and one is a litigant in person.

You guys and girls in England and Wales will say that court attendances are timed. I know that, as we do a lot of work there. Hearings are rarely timed in family cases in Northern Ireland, meaning that people are turning up at court on time and because of the lawyers jostling for position, and the courts lack of concern about a personal litigant, personal litigants and their McKenzie friends are kicking their heels for hours. Personal litigants are losing money from lost hours at work and having to pay their McKenzie friends.

Who would be a personal litigant! More and more people it would seem…

Just thought I would share the following letter with our readers that was sent to both Lady Silvia Hermon MP and Nigel Dodds MP seeking clarification on the law on Northern Ireland in relation to ‘communications’ of documents and other information on Children Order and Matrimonial Causes Order cases.

From: John Junk [mailto:belfast@familycourtsupport.co.uk]
Sent: 22 January 2010 14:59
To: Lady Sylvia Hermon MP for North Down
Cc: ‘Nigel Dodds’
Subject: Family Court ‘communications’ Northern Ireland

Dear Lady Sylvia

Thank you for seeing both myself and your constituent at your Bangor constituency office on Friday 15th January 2010.

You mentioned that you would consider seeking clarification on a number of matters raised during that meeting by way of Parliamentary questions. I suggested that a more expedited way to deal with the matter would be to write to the Head of the Family Division in Northern Ireland Mr Justice Weir, and to copy Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice in to the correspondence as an information addressee. Regardless of which method you chose to staff this matter, I thought it might be helpful for you if I were to formalise the issues I raised with you around ‘communication’ of documents under the Children (NI) Order 1995 and the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

Firstly I made the point that I was unsure whether a Member of Parliament in Northern Ireland (and their staff?) required leave to see any documents from either a current or historical Children Order or Matrimonial Causes case. I believe that both yourself and your staff would be aided in your work if this matter was clarified and communicated to you by either the Northern Ireland Court Service or from the senior judiciary. A similar issue arose today when I was called to the office of Nigel Dodds MP to speak to a constituent of his who had attended at his office with a live Children Order matter, currently being heard by District Judge Alcorn at Antrim. I advised Mr Dodds’ office and the constituent that as I had not been granted leave to see the papers I felt unable to assist, and cautioned them on what I believed the law to be on communication. I have coped Mr Dodds’ office into this email.

Secondly, I pointed out that as a lay adviser and McKenzie friend who assists in divorce, ancillary relief and private law matters under the 1978 and 1995 Orders, it is my experience that unlike England and Wales, there is no formal direction (for from example the Family Proceeding Rules Committee) that states that litigants in person do not require leave to show papers to their McKenzie friends and lay advisers. I cannot speak for others in the lay advice sector such as Women’s Aid or the Citizen Advice Bureau, but I can say with confidence that there either is no accepted procedure for lay advisers seeing documents in cases under either the 1978 or 1995 Orders, or alternatively if any global guidance does exist it is not being followed throughout the court system in Northern Ireland. In support of this assertion, and by way of example I will set out a number of situations I have experienced in local courts.

On one occasion I had to give an oral undertaking under oath in the High Court in front of Mr Justice McLaughlin to be granted leave to see papers; whilst on another occasion I had to be given leave to see case papers by a Master that I had already seen; and had admitted to having seen. I have had to apply for, and been given leave to see papers by a range of magistrates after the court made the issue justiciable, by the magistrate raising the matter of their own motion. On numerous other occasions jurists have made no issue about my seeing the papers, and leave was neither sought nor given, and I was granted a discretionary right of audience to advocate my client’s case. I count Mr Justice Weir and the current Lord Chief Justice in the latter category.

I feel that the position in Northern Ireland is unsatisfactory in that litigants in person are unnecessarily being prevented from obtaining assistance as urgently as they require it. On a personal level I am potentially placing myself in an contemptuous position as the law stands in Northern Ireland by seeing papers without leave being granted. It is impractical to expect anyone to assist in a case if they cannot see the papers at the earliest possible opportunity, normally when a client attends a lay adviser.

This position is to be contrasted with the position in England and Wales where Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1976 (L. 18 ) The Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005, and subsequent primary and secondary legislation applies, sanctioning McKenzie friends and lay advisors to see the entirety of the papers without seeking leave.

Some authoritative interim guidance setting out the position in Northern Ireland would be helpful until such times as the matter can be considered by whichever legislature ends up dealing with the substantive issue.

Yours sincerely
John Junk
For www.familycourtsupport.co.uk

Following on from my earlier post about the status of McKenzie friends in Northern Ireland I would like to tell you all about a document apparently authored by Darren McAuley, a solicitor at Thompsons McClure in Belfast. The blurb on him at the Thompsons McClure website is here.He seems a big hitter in Northern Ireland family law circles, although to the best of my knowledge I don’t know him. Maybe that says more about me than it does about him! He certainly has a lot to say about McKenzie friends as he has written what is clearly an evolving document on the case law about McKenzie friends.

At the time of writing this post his document was hosted on the Law Society of Northern Ireland’s server, and seems written for an audience rather that as a bare research document.

The Word document is entitled ‘A little help from a (McKenzie) Friend and notes that Heather Mills McCartney had not one, not two, but THREE McKenzie Friends for her Ancillary Relief hearing, two of which McAuley claims were professional lawyers, albeit one from a different jurisdiction.

NB. The HTML version can be accessed by Googling ‘ McKenzie Friend Northern Ireland’, and clicking on the ‘View as HTML’ link. I would advise that if you have Word and a good antivirus scanner then you should download the Word version as it contains the ‘Track Changes’ review from the last version.

McAuley posits that

‘McCartney v Mills McCartney 2008 1 FLR 1508 should have resulted in Litigants in Person shying away from litigating themselves or substituting proper legal representation for a MF.  But a suffocating economic climate coupled with scant /inaccurate media reporting of the MF has meant the DIY approach of saving costs and opting for MF assistance has remained.  Like it or loathe it practitioners must get to know the MF a little better.’

McAuley then goes on to muse that

‘Some practitioners may feel that already too many concessions have been made.  Dare I suggest that the qualified legal practitioner may even view the professional MF with a degree of jealousy given that the Friend has no governing body to answer to, no rules or conduct protocols to follow, no formal training to undergo yet still receives remuneration.  After all some of those holding themselves out as professional MF’s pull few punches when they come to providing an assessment of the Matrimonial Profession. “Many of which” to quote one Charity “don’t do a very good gob.  Many family law solicitors won’t follow instructions and simply and lousily go through the motions.  No Solicitor can afford to put in the time on statements or in sleuthing out evidence that you can.  It is not unusual for LIP to be far more aware about recent developments in family law than an experienced solicitor”. Such comments are unfortunate, unhelpful and do little to thaw the frosty relationship between the LIP and MF on one side, and the legal profession on the other.’

Whilst the MF may be considered by some to be an integral piece of the LIP’s fair hearing ‘jigsaw’ and one which is becoming a more frequent sight at court, the Friend is not and never should be thought of as a substitute for experienced legal representation.  Just ask Heather Mills.’

I have to say that whoever would have assisted Heather Mills would have had a difficulty, but that difficulty may have been more to do with the  credibility of the evidence and what Ms Mills did with advice ,and not necessarily with the quality of the advice itself. As a professional McKenzie friend I can assure everyone that I wouldn’t have taken that case on for the original lawyers fee. Persuasive though I am I suspect Ms Mills would have been more strong willed than me and we would have parted, each understanding the others position perfectly!

Welcome though it is as a practising solicitors appraisal of where the law on McKenzie friends sits, I am intrigued about the status of this document. Is it an official document with the imprimatur of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, circulated internally or just something that Darren has written up for a conference or a publication?  Either way it’s certainly out there in the public domain.

Would be interested to see which charity he is referring to that seems to have got in in for solicitors. I Googled some of the text but cant find the reference. Can anyone help? If so pop an email off to me at help@mckenziefriend.com