Kent and Adams (aka Adams and Adams (No 1)) - [2007] FamCA 40

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KENT & ADAMS (AKA ADAMS & ADAMS (NO. 1))

[2007] FamCA 40

FAMILY LAW - Litigant in person placed in custody for disruptive behaviour and to secure integrity of court process and safety of other people in the court – Arrangements put in place for husband to participate in hearing from else where in the court building – Husband released from custody.

APPLICANT:

Mrs Kent

RESPONDENT:

Mr Adams

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Donald S Lampe

FILE NUMBER:

MLF

2456

2006

DATE DELIVERED:

6 February 2007

PLACE DELIVERED:

Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF:

Bennett J

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2007

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

Mr A. Combes

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:

Jane Baldwin

THE RESPONDENT:

In person

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER COUNSEL:

Mr R. Hoult

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER SOLICITOR:

Donald S Lampe

Orders

That the husband forthwith be released from custody.
I DIRECT that my reasons be transcribed immediately and be made available to the husband and to the other parties without delay.
That the matter otherwise be adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday

7 February 2007 at 10:00am.
That I reserve liberty to the wife and to the independent children's lawyer to seek to proceed with the matter tomorrow on an unopposed basis in the event that the husband does not appear either by himself or by legal representation.
That I reserve liberty to the parties to make application before me after 2:30 pm this afternoon on notice to each other party.
I DIRECT that arrangements for the husband to adduce evidence between this registry of the Court and Rockhampton be put in abeyance pending further order and the wife parents be notified by her that they are not required to travel to Rockhampton tomorrow for the purpose of giving evidence.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLF 2456 of 2006

Ms Kent

Applicant

And

Mr Adams

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(ex tempore)

I will deliver some brief reasons for judgment dealing with the husband being placed in custody and now being released.
At the beginning of the hearing yesterday I explained to the husband and to the practitioners for the parties the basic requirements for me to carry out my function, which is to hear the evidence, make rulings and to come to a decision. Those requirements included not interrupting others and not making outbursts. I stated clearly the times this court would sit, being from 10 am to 1 pm and from 2:30pm to 4:30pm. I advised the husband, in particular, that it was essential for him to attend and to be present when the matter is called on for hearing and that if he was not present, then I would assume he did not wish to be heard and the matter would proceed in his absence.
Yesterday the husband was approximately 10 minutes late back after the luncheon adjournment. Today the husband was 15 minutes late to court. There was no advance warning; no request by him to attend late. I asked him to explain himself. The husband’s response was, in summary, that I was “wrong” and that he attended at 10:12 am. Having been held up at the security entrance. I told the husband that it was prudent to allow 20 minutes to make his way through security. The security door is the only way in which members of the public and litigants can make their way into court.
The husband’s response and tone of voice was inappropriate and disrespectful to the court. For the record, he said that he had waited two years for a hearing, so I could wait 10 minutes. He took the microphone out of the cradle at the bar table and raised his voice in an effort to speak over me. The microphones on the bar table record but do not amplify. They are certainly not there for the husband to wield. They are not there for the husband to remove and pull on, and when I directed him to replace it, he did not immediately replace it. I am satisfied that his response and his conduct was uncontrolled; more significantly, it was contemptuous.
I ordered that the husband be placed in custody. That was to protect the integrity of the hearing process, to protect the other people in court, including practitioners, and to allow the husband an opportunity to reflect on the way his behaviour was preventing his case from being heard. Of course it is not only his case; it is the case of his wife and his child, V.
Now, shortly before 1:00pm, the husband has not given any indication that he will observe even the most basic rules which, as I have already explained to him, include not interrupting when others speak.
I have informed counsel for the wife and counsel for the independent children's lawyer, that it is not possible to bring the husband back into court at this time. I am advised that his behaviour in custody is such that he cannot safely be moved at this stage. I would have preferred that he attend court but I accept the advice that his behaviour is such that he cannot be brought to court at this stage. I will therefore order that these reasons for judgment and these comments be transcribed as soon as possible and a copy provided to him at his address for service.
It is my duty to run this court in an orderly and efficient manner. I also have to be mindful that if this case is unnecessarily extended or prolonged, that will be to the disadvantage of other cases awaiting hearing in the court. My commitment to hear this case about V efficiently and as soon as the justice of the situation allows. However, the husband’s interjections and outbursts directly and indirectly impede me from doing so. His interruptions and outbursts slow down the efficiency with which the court can operate. As

I pointed out to him yesterday, his outbursts impede his ability to concentrate and focus on the real issue in the proceedings, the best interests of his child.
The other parties and the court have assisted the husband to a proper extent to get to court the evidence that he wants to present. However, they cannot present the evidence for him. If he wants to participate, he must

co-operate with the process.
The husband has stated that he proposes to adduce no psychiatric evidence about himself. There is no medical practitioner upon whose evidence he relies and from whom I can seek any guidance, by way of evidence, at this stage.
It is obviously in V’s interests and in the husband’s interests that there be a hearing, but it seems at this stage that the husband’s actions are directed at frustrating a hearing, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Whilst the matter has been stood down, I have made arrangements for a facility to be set up by the court from which the husband can participate in the proceedings from another location within the building. It seems to me that in the event that he cannot behave in court, he should still be given an opportunity to participate from elsewhere in the building. That will minimise his ability to disrupt the court process. It would be full participation by him effected by video-link. Those arrangements can operate until further order in the event that it is necessary for them to operate at all.
Had the husband been able to be brought from the cells, I would have given him an opportunity to remain in this courtroom to participate, notwithstanding that he had not volunteered any intention to cooperate. Obviously, I cannot do that if he will not leave the cells. I will order that he be released immediately.
I will order that these reasons be transcribed as soon as possible and sent to him either by personal delivery or to his address for service. He will see that he can appear tomorrow and participate in an orderly way or that the other parties may apply to have the matter finally determined in his absence.
Everything that I said yesterday concerning how the proceedings must operate still applies, that is as to interjections, punctuality and the like. I will adjourn until shortly after lunch to take any other matters. I give all parties in this matter liberty to apply after lunch on notice to each of the other parties.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett

Associate:

Date: 6 February 2007

IT IS NOTED that this judgment for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as ADAMS & ADAMS