ights Act 1998.pdfVIP

Children and the Human Rights Act 1998 The First Six Months in England and Wales Andrew McFarlane QC One Kings Bench Walk Temple London Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial Rights of a McKenzie Friend to object to refusal to allow him to act Dr Pelling, ‘an experienced participant in family disputes’, sought judicial review of the decision of the judge at Bow County Court not to allow him to act as a McKenzie Friend. The QBD Ct dismissed the application, holding that a person seeking to act as a McKenzie Friend had neither the right to be present in chambers nor the right to impugn the exercise of judicial discretion to exclude him. In open court any party has the right to have a McKenzie Friend. Dr Pelling therefore had not locus standi to bring judicial review proceedings. Dr Pelling appealed to the Court of Appeal which, following Re G (above), dismissed the appeal. R v Bow County Court ex parte Pelling [1999] 2 FLR 1126 [CA] ECHR hold that current practice in children cases does not breach Art 6 In November 2000 the ECtHR heard the applications of Dr Pelling and Mr B claiming that the system for children cases in England and Wales breached Article 6 in that the hearing was not in public and did not result in public pronouncement of judgment. Mr B also complained that he was prevented from disclosing any part of the judgment to his parents (who had independently received worrying information contained in an affidavit in related proceedings) on pain of contempt proceedings (in breach of Article 10 – freedom of expression). On Mr B’s behalf it was argued that: - The correct approach should be that, on a case-by-case basis