Telford and Telford (No 2)

[2020] FamCA 311

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TELFORD & TELFORD (NO. 2) [2020] FamCA 311

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –  possible dissemination of information about proceedings during a trial – application to close the Court for the balance of proceedings – Court closed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121

APPLICANT: Ms Telford

RESPONDENT: Mr Telford

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1050 of 2016

DATE DELIVERED: 21 February 2020

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Harper J

HEARING DATE: 21 February 2020

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Othen

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: L & M Law

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Goodchild

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ark Law Pty Ltd

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Schroder

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. All persons who are not parties or one of a party’s legal representatives leave the Court and be excluded therefrom for the balance of the proceedings or until further order.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Telford & Telford has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1050 of 2016

Ms Telford

Applicant

And

Mr Telford

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A.These reasons were delivered ex tempore and corrected for literal and grammatical errors.

1. These are short reasons to support a proposed direction to close the Court for the balance of the proceedings to members of the public in proceedings SYC1050 of 2016. 

2. This trial has been proceeding for four days. The evidence so far explored makes plain there is considerable conflict between the parents of the children subject to the proceedings and that that conflict has spilled over, most regrettably, not only into their extended families but into the wider members of the religious community with which they both identify.

3. It has been brought to my attention that it is possible a member of the public has disseminated part of an account of evidence in these proceedings that took place yesterday and possibly did so quite inaccurately. 

4. Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) is quite clear in its terms. Sub-section (1) prohibits a person from disseminating to the public or a section of the public, by any means, any account of any proceedings or any part of any proceedings under the Act that identifies, inter alia, a party to the proceedings. If what I have been told this morning is correct, there is a possibility that sub-section has been violated.

5. Section 121 creates an indictable offence, so a breach is a very serious matter.  Not only that, in proceedings where the best interest of children are paramount, conduct which violates s 121 has very real potential to damage, in some fashion, including psychologically, the children who are the subject of the proceedings.  It is, of course, always totally unacceptable that the laws of Australia be breached, but it is particularly reprehensible when that is done in circumstances where it appears there is reckless indifference to the best interests of young children.

6. Accordingly, I am persuaded that the balance of these proceedings should be conducted in a closed Court. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Harper delivered on 21 February 2020.

Associate:

Date:  1 May 2020