A so-called committal hearing, where a dad faced up to two years in prison for allegedly breaching a non-molestation order, was not listed in public contrary to court rules.
In February 2025 a published judgment caught my eye. A key point of public interest was nestled away in the penultimate paragraph. The claimant, a mother, was forced to pursue her claim in the family court rather than the criminal courts, because of what was described by the judge as an unacceptable delay:
It is unfortunate that the Claimant has had to resort to committal proceedings to enforce the breaches of this non-molestation order, solely because the trial date given by the criminal court, where such offences are usually dealt with, was unacceptably delayed
Two other things caught my eye.
Firstly, the date of the actual committal hearing was stated as the 18th January 2025 – which was a Saturday.
And secondly, this committal hearing didn’t appear on the public list. Either on the 18th Jan (because the family court doesn’t sit on the weekend), or on the date of the sentencing – 6th February.
The ‘general rule’ pertaining to the public nature of committal hearings is laid out in the Practice Direction on Committal for Contempt of Court in Open Court which states at 5(1): “All committal hearings, whether on application or otherwise and whether for contempt in the face of the court or any other form of contempt, shall be listed and heard in public.“
This sentiment is echoed in the Family Procedure rules:
37.8
(1) All hearings of contempt proceedings shall, irrespective of the parties’ consent, be listed and heard in public unless the court otherwise directs, applying the provisions of paragraph (4).
…
(3) The court shall take reasonable steps to ensure that all hearings are of an open and public character, save when a hearing is held in private
The judgment makes clear that this was an East London Family court case, purportedly sitting at 11 Westferry Circus on 6th February 2025, and that “this judgment was delivered in public…”.
The problem is that the published list for the 6th February 2025 doesn’t show HHJ Reardon as sitting on any case at all, let alone hearing a case required to be held in public.
I rattled off a quick complaint to HMCTS to ask for an explanation as to why the case wasn’t listed.
I received a speedy reply from the team leader at the court and was told:
I have looked into the matter for you and can confirm that the case was listed on the 6th of February 2025.
However, this case was scheduled to be heard at Stratford Magistrates’ Court, not East London Family Court. As a result, the case listing would have been uploaded by Stratford Court on Court Serve, rather than East London.
The difficulty with this reply is that the case wasn’t listed at Stratford Mags – on either the Common Platform list or the Libre list.
It was heard entirely in secret.
The judgment makes no reference to the case having ‘transferred’ to Stratford Mags. In any event it remains a Family Court matter, with the court merely sitting in a different location.
For instance, this case appearing on the Family Court list, is shown as sitting in Croydon (a mere hour away):
All in all a very odd situation.
Having replied to the team leader on Feb 14th, concluding that “my concern that the case was simply not listed in public remains“, I have yet to receive a response.
This isn’t of course the most egregious breach of open justice imaginable. I doubt there is a conspiracy at play. Administrative cock-up rather then sinister secrecy. It does however raise two points –
1 – Just how many hearings, that are required to be listed in public, are slipping through the cracks?
2 – The lack of any meaningful remedy. My complaint has yet to be resolved. The court has simply ignored my last e-mail. I guess I could launch judicial review proceedings if I had the time and inclination – I have neither – but is this really what I’d have to resort to?
This isn’t the first time I’ve reported about ‘secret’ unlisted hearings. In 2021 I trapsed round the RCJ looking for another committal hearing that didn’t have a courtroom listed. I’ve detailed a few others on my ‘Secret Courts’ page – and these are just the ones that have been actively looked for.
Mouse in the Court 