Cambridge Family Law Practice

A man involved in an adoption case was sent to prison for four months for contempt of court after covertly recording court proceedings.

The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb noted that the man’s recording, made in 2022, had been handed to a third party and then published on YouTube. Related documents were also given to the third party, and the resulting three videos were viewed over 1,600 times. This incurred an additional four-month sentence, to run concurrently. The man was also ordered to pay £5,000 in legal costs.

The Judge explained:

“It is… a most serious contempt of court to defy the long-established principle of privacy in adoption cases by covert recording of a hearing; the contempt is aggravated when the recording is published.”

The offence, Mr Justice Cobb continued, been “so serious” that a suspended sentence would not be appropriate, and instead:

“… it must be met by an immediate, albeit short, custodial term.”

The identification of children involved in family court cases is strictly forbidden in order to protect their privacy, and this includes a ban on any recording of the proceedings. Prominent signs in courtrooms make the prohibition clear.

The Judge was, he said, fully satisfied that the defendant knew recording the proceedings and publishing the results would both be illegal.

“The prohibition on recording family proceedings and on publishing certain information relating to family proceedings is vital to the integrity of family proceedings. The deliberate defiance of the law prohibiting recording and publication of family proceedings involving children must therefore result in substantial punishment…The punishment needs to reflect the court’s profound disapproval when the child is named.”

But set against the man’s deliberate contempt were mitigating factors. He did not deny making the recordings, and the case itself was able to proceed without hindrance. A final adoption order was made later the same month.

Kathryn Evans, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, comments: “Whilst the published judgment understandably omits detail as to the defendant’s full intentions and relationship to the relevant proceedings, there can be no excuse for ignoring this fundamental rule in respect of family court cases; the privacy of children, who have been caught up in court proceedings, must be strictly protected, save for in very exceptional circumstances when a court rules that the safety and welfare of the children trumps their privacy.”

Read the full judgement here.