Independent Children’s Lawyer and Din & Anor (No 2)

The proceeding before Hogan J concerned an application for a suppression order. The parties involved were the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and two other parties, Din and Anor (No 2). The core of the dispute revolved around the extent to which proceedings should be suppressed and the ICL's ability to access and participate in those proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to confirm an interim suppression order and, if so, what exceptions, if any, should be made to that order. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the ICL should be permitted to hear the proceedings despite the general suppression.

Hogan J reasoned that while a suppression order was warranted, it should not operate to exclude the ICL from the proceedings. The Court’s approach recognised the crucial role of the ICL in representing the best interests of the child in family law matters. The principle applied was that the ICL’s statutory mandate to advocate for the child necessitates access to all relevant information and proceedings, even those subject to suppression for other parties.

Consequently, Hogan J ordered that the interim suppression order be confirmed, but with a specific exception allowing the Independent Children’s Lawyer to hear the proceedings. The final form of this order was subject to the formal entry of the order in the Court’s records.