The stimulus for this committee is the scoping study instigated by the Lord Chancellor to determine whether or not there is a fundamental need for reform in the administration of the courts dealing with Family Justice, and, in particular to follow up Dame Margaret Booth's 1996 report, "Delay in Public Law Children Act Proceedings" [Endnote 1]. When this report was completed the final draft of the scoping study was still under consideration, but has since been published [Endnote 2]. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor's Department has taken the early initiative of asking this committee to consider the possible reform of three discreet areas, namely:
Delay resulting from the requirement for magistrates to provide written reasons for their orders.
The limitation of the present powers of justices' clerks in respect of their case management role, delays resulting from that and options for change.
The transfer criteria between Family Proceedings Courts and the County Court Care Centres, and in particular to:
Review the existing criteria.
Identify the extent to which there is divergence in practice from the principles of the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991.
Make recommendations for issues to be considered with the County Court Judges Committee.
This committee have considered Dame Margaret Booth's Report ("the Booth Report") and the report of Her Majesty's Courts Service Inspectorate entitled "A Review of Case Administration in the Family Proceedings Courts - May 2001" [Endnote 3] ("the Inspectorates Report"); have consulted both Solicitors Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association, and, because of our broadly based composition have consulted widely, but informally, within a broad range of those responsible for the administration of Family Justice in the Family Proceedings Courts. In the area of delay resulting from the preparation of written reasons by magistrates we have drawn particularly from the work of the Justices Clerks Society.
Delay resulting from the current requirement for magistrates to provide written reasons for their orders in the Family Proceedings Court
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to permit the magistrates in cases where the time needed for the preparation of written reasons is likely to cause significant inconvenience to the Court, the parties or their representatives to announce their decision in open Court with a brief oral statement of their essential reasons and findings of fact and to deliver their written reasons within seven days of the making of the order.
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to permit the magistrates in cases where sound recording systems are available to announce in court their decision together with their full reasons and findings of fact without the need to record them in writing.
That there be a review of support technology and training available to Family Proceedings Courts for the recording of decisions and the preparation of records of reasons and findings.
That pursuant to Section 93 of the Children Act 1989, and in the exercise of his powers under Section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the Lord Chancellor amend the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 to provide that the Family Proceedings Courts shall give such directions, (with necessary modifications) as will carry into effect in the Family Proceedings Courts the Practice Directions of the President of the Family Division to the same extent as they apply in the County Court.
The limitation of the present powers of justices' clerks in respect of their case management role, delays resulting from that and options for change.
That Magistrates' Court Committees actively support appropriate training programmes for their clerks in the conduct of directions hearings and that the Judicial Studies Board play an advisory role in establishing best practice, and the provision of training materials and opportunities.
That Rule 11A of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended (pursuant to the powers referred to in Recommendation 6) to provide that, in addition to the duties set out in the Rule, the Guardian shall monitor the compliance of all parties with the directions of the Court and inform the clerk to the justices forthwith upon the failure of any party, expert or legal representative to comply with any direction of the Court.
That Rule 14 of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to include a provision that upon being notified that any directions order made by the court or the justices' clerk has not been complied with, the justices' clerk or the court shall consider whether to give, vary, or revoke any directions for the conduct of proceedings, including those set out at Rule 14(2)(a) to (i). The provisions of Rule 14(5), as to the mode of making orders, shall apply in like manner to this provision as to Rule 14(2).
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to provide that upon being notified or otherwise learning that any directions order made by the court or the justices' clerk has not been complied with, the justices' clerk or the court shall consider whether on its face the non-compliance is so grave and culpable that the court ought to consider its powers to make wasted costs order or impose a penalty under S63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and, where appropriate, the case shall be listed for the attendance of the parties and the consideration and making of such orders.
The transfer criteria between Family Proceedings Courts and the County Court Care Centres, and in particular:
That a comprehensive and fully resourced study be undertaken to establish the breakdown and distribution of work in each of the Family Proceedings Courts, the number and experience of Family Panel Magistrates and the current clerking provision. On the basis of such knowledge a review should be undertaken of the number and location of Family Proceedings Courts, and their staffing, both judicial and advisory. The aim of the review should be to identify the most expeditious way of dealing with Family Work, including the use of specialist centres, where appropriate, and the development of specialization in the Family Proceedings Courts.
That in order to heighten awareness of the benefits and availability of retransfer we recommend that the President and the Judicial Studies Board be invited to encourage the judges at all levels at the Care Centre to be proactive in identifying cases suitable for retransfer.
That administrative procedures be put in place between all Care Centres and their feeder courts at a "List Manager" level, so that appropriate and up to date information is available to judges and magistrates making decisions on transfer.
That the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991 be amended to grant power to the County Court to transfer to a Family Proceedings Court Private Law matters under the Children Act 1989 if, having regard to the complexity, the likely length of any hearing, and the date upon which it could be heard, it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act to do so. The amendment should be in plain language. The need to liase with the Clerk to the Justices on a case by case basis under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 should be amended.
That counter staff and others dealing with the issuing of originating proceedings in the County Court are trained to alert litigants in person in cases where there are no related proceedings pending or impending in the County Court, that it is cheaper, and often quicker, to issue proceedings in the Family Proceedings Courts.
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to permit the magistrates in cases where the time needed for the preparation of written reasons is likely to cause significant inconvenience to the Court, the parties or their representatives to announce their decision in open Court with a brief oral statement of their essential reasons and findings of fact and to deliver their written reasons within seven days of the making of the order.
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to permit the magistrates in cases where sound recording systems are available to announce in court their decision together with their full reasons and findings of fact without the need to record them in writing.
That there be a review of support technology and training available to Family Proceedings Court for the recording of decisions and the preparation of records of reasons and findings.
That pursuant to Section 93 of the Children Act 1989, and in the exercise of his powers under Section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the Lord Chancellor amend the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 to provide that the Family Proceedings Courts shall give such directions, (with necessary modifications) as will carry into effect in the Family Proceedings Courts the Practice Directions of the President of the Family Division to the same extent as they apply in the County Court.
1.1 Since the coming into effect of the Children Act 1989 and the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 magistrates have been required to give reasons in writing for their decisions before making their orders. Over the last ten years, magistrates and clerks in this jurisdiction have amassed considerable experience in doing so. Recent research suggests that the process by which this is done varies widely, particularly in regard to the role of the justices' clerks. In more recent times, as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6(1) of the Convention, magistrates have become more practised in giving reasons for their decisions throughout their jurisdiction. However, in practice, the reasons required of them in Family Cases, which must be recorded in writing, are fuller than elsewhere in their jurisdiction. (Contrast The Queen on the Application of McGowan v Brent Justices [2001] EWHC Admin 814 and the "Guidance as to the preparation of Justices' written findings and reason" prepared by Mr Justice Cazalet and set out in the "Children Act Advisory Committee Handbook of Best Practice in Children Act case")
1.2 In addition to the guidance from the Children Act Advisory Committee and Mr Justice Cazalet, magistrates have had the benefit of guidance from many reported cases over the last ten years and the advice of the leading textbook writers. Despite this and a growing wealth of experience, delay in the preparation of written reasons by magistrates has been a constant cause of concern and complaint from litigants and professionals alike. It was reflected in the Booth Report (3.2.25), the recent Inspectorate Report (2.29) and the scoping study. The Inspectorate suggested that:
"Magistrates' Court Committees should explore ways of providing support for Family Proceedings Courts to improve the speed with which reasons are produced."
1.3 Whilst we accept that there is an understandable basis for these concerns, we are firmly of the view that it must be understood that delay is inevitable in the preparation of written reasons by two or three magistrates endeavouring to synthesise their views. Whilst it can be minimised it can never be wholly avoided. In that context we have made four recommendations, which we consider have the potential to significantly improve the situation.
2.1 The specific rules which require the magistrates of the Family Proceedings Courts to record their reasons in writing and to state their findings of fact and reasons in court at the time of making their order are Rules 21(4), 21(5) and 21(6) of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 (See Appendix 1).
2.2 The consequence of these rules is that no order may be made without a written record having been made of the magistrates' reasons and findings of fact and without those reasons and findings being stated in court. The court will almost invariably rise and indicate to the parties how long it might need to reach it decision, but the estimation of that time is difficult before deliberation has commenced. H. M. Inspectorate was told that the task often takes a considerable time. That accords with the relevant experience of members of this working party, and was a point made to us by the Solicitors Family Law Association and others. That delay can be a deterrent to court users and an inducement to argue for the transfer of the case to the County Court.
2.3 The Family Proceedings Court is not precluded from reserving judgement, but that can have adverse consequences. The parties and at least one of the magistrates must return to court on another day to be told of the decision and the reasons. This is not always convenient or practicable and may cause difficulties for all those involved and court listing. It may well be necessary for the court to make a holding order to cover the adjournment and that order itself is the subject of the Rules, which will lead to duplication of work and further delay. In addition to these essentially administrative problems, the impact on the parties and the children involved must always be to the forefront of the court's mind. The outcome of nearly all Children Act cases are the cause of anxiety to the parties and, not infrequently, the children. In many cases the consequences are a major life event and are the cause of very great anxiety. A delay of a week in finding out what the order is to be, can seem like an age to those tormented by such understandable anxiety.
2.4 The present position in the County Court and the High Court is more flexible, largely because there is no duty to pre-record the reasons and findings in writing. The proceedings are governed by the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, Rule 4.21. As with the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991, the court is required to make its decision, "as soon as is practicable" and to state its findings of facts and reasons for making its decision when making any order. The crucial difference is that the reasons do not have to be in writing, and the experienced judges of the County Court and High Court are able to deliver extemporary judgements.
3.1 We fully accept the need for discussion and for decisions to be made based on sound reasoning prior to the announcement of the decision in court. Obviously, the present Rules safeguard against a failure to comprehensively complete that task before the order is made. We also appreciate that the present Rules prevent retrospective justification of an incompletely considered decision. We have in mind that only part of the delay is the bureaucratic process of writing down the findings and reasons of the court, which may, in any event be susceptible to expedition by other means (see below). However, we are firmly of the view that, provided the Rules are amended appropriately, the potential risks can be avoided.
3.2 In many cases unnecessary delay could be prevented by allowing the magistrates to announce their decision and make their order, in advance of recording it in writing. The written record would then be served upon all parties within, at most, seven days. If such procedure were adopted, the magistrates would first have to be satisfied that they had fully considered the case and had received such guidance from their clerk as they consider necessary. In order to emphasise this we consider that the amended rules should emphasis this. It would also be necessary for the court to state, when pronouncing any decision, the essential reasons for it and the essential findings of fact.
3.3 Some concern has been expressed that the adoption of the scheme we favour could increase the overall time spent by the magistrates and their legal advisers in first formulating the essential reasons and findings to be announced and then formulating the final written reasons and findings of fact. We do not envisage that the essential reasons and findings of fact would descend to any great level of particularity and could be prepared and delivered without a disproportionate use of time. The use of some additional time by the magistrates and their clerks would be justified by the countervailing benefit to court users.
3.4 We have considered a proposal that the present Rules simply be amended to allow for the announcement of the decision and the subsequent provision of written reasons. However, we have a number of concerns about such a course. It would admit the danger of inchoate decision-making. It could, for example, lead to a wholly unsatisfactory situation where a draconian and inappropriate order is made without an aggrieved party having the slightest idea about the basis of the decision and being impotent to appeal. We are concerned that such a state of affairs would not be comparable with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right to a fair trial enshrined in that Article.
In considering our suggested departure from the present Rules we have had in mind the judgement of Lord Bingham CJ in McKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices (2000) 164 JP 355 at 362, where the Lord Chief Justice said:
"It is, however, as I think the law that justices are not obliged to state reasons in the form of a judgement or to give reasons in any elaborate form....
"In my judgement the reasoning that is called for depends both on the matter to be decided and the court by which the matter is to be decided. It is not usual for magistrates to give detailed reasons; nor is it usual for juries, who make very important decisions effecting human rights, to give any reasons at all. If an aggrieved party wishes to obtain more detailed reasons from a Magistrates Court, then a request can be made to state a case, as was done here, and the justices have given their reasons at somewhat greater length."
Of course, Lord Bingham was there dealing with a different jurisdiction and the formal statement of a case. Nevertheless, we consider that his observations support, in general terms, the contention that a statement of the essential reasons and findings, in advance of more "detailed reasons" given at "somewhat greater length", constitute an appropriate approach to the role of the justices in the Family Proceedings Court.
3.6 Whether the postponed delivery of the record of reasons and findings would be appropriate in any particular court or any particular case would depend on the judgement of the justice or justices at the hearing. Other options, including reserving judgement or pre-recording their reasons and finding, must remain available to reflect the variation in the complexity of different cases and the experience of different courts.
3.7 If such a change were to be adopted we consider that appropriate training would be necessary. H.M. Inspectorate expressed the view that Magistrates' Court Committees should "Explore ways of providing support for "FPCs" to improve the speed with which reasons for their decisions are produced. We would expect that in the light of that suggestion Magistrates' Court Committees would recognise the need to introduce additional training both for magistrates and clerks in the Family Proceedings Courts. The requirements of different courts, with different workloads and divergent levels of experience will vary enormously. To ensure a uniformity of approach and the adoption of best practice, we would invite the Lord Chancellor to consider the involvement of the Judicial Studies Board, at least in an advisory role. The Board's staff have advised this Working Party informally, that they would willingly undertake such a task, but adequate funding would have to be made available.
3.8 The opportunity ought also to be taken for the Judicial Studies Board to advise on best practice in the preparation of reasons and findings. At present the use of "templates" in reaching decisions is widespread, but there is no uniform template used nationally. In the forty-two Magistrates' Court Committee areas there is a wide variation in the form of the "templates" used. Also, it is understood that a resent study has shown that there is an inappropriate variation in the practises of different Family Proceedings Courts in the preparation of reasons and the function of the clerk in the task. The experience and capacity of different benches and clerks in Family matters varies enormously. However, the present level of diversity of practice ought to be addressed as part of the advice given by the Judicial Studies Board, and an advisory "best practice" protocol prepared.
3.9 A schematic draft of our proposed amendments to the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules appears at Appendix 1.
4. We are satisfied that there are some Family Proceedings Courts, primarily where there are District Judges (Magistrates Courts) or very experienced chairmen, where considerable savings in time could be made by permitting both the reason for the decision and the findings of fact to be delivered once appropriate deliberation has taken place and without the need to record them in writing. We accept that they are the minority. The oral delivery of comprehensive reasons and findings without a written record would require the provision of appropriate mechanical recording equipment.
5. The necessity of having an accurate record of the statements of reasons and facts found is obvious. In addition, the benefit of having mechanically recording facilities, even in cases where only the essential reasons and findings are given in court, is also obvious, in terms of both accuracy and speed. At present recording facilities are available in hardly any Family Proceedings Courts. The absence of mechanical recording systems means that an important opportunity for reducing delay is under-utilised. We suggest that an urgent review is undertaken to establish how best appropriate systems might be installed.
6. Within the draft schematic amendments to the Rules set out in Appendix 1 we have made provision for the delivery of extemporary statements of reason and facts, provided appropriate recording facilities are available.
7. The time for appealing orders where the stating of reasons and findings has been postponed cannot reasonably start to run until the parties are in possession of the relevant document. At present such appeals are governed by Family Proceedings Rules 1991 r 4.22(3). Time for appealing is 14 days and begins to run from the "determination" against which the appeal is brought, save in the case of interim care orders pursuant to Section 38(1) of the Children Act 1989. In the case of Section 38(1) orders the time for appeal is 7 days after the making of the order. Since the determination must have taken place at the time the order is made any delay in providing the detailed reasons and findings could drastically reduce the time for appealing in the generality of Children Act orders and in the case of interim care orders the relevant document could arrive up to three days after the time for appeal has expired. Thus, Rule 4.22 will require amendment and we have set out a proposed draft in Appendix 2.
8.1 In the report of H. M. Inspectorate reference was as also made in the context of improving the speed with which reasons are produced to the fact that in only one of the six courts studied was a laptop PC available to the magistrates at the time they were preparing their reasons. Whilst appreciating that there are resource implications, we consider that it can no longer be regarded as acceptable that magistrates, who are required to give written reasons, do not have the benefit of word processing technology. Their capacity to produce written reasons would be considerably enhanced by draft reasons and chronologies being presented to them on disc. (The Family Law Bar Association has circulated its membership advising them to take both hard copies and discs to court.)
8.2 We would suggest that, together with the study directed at the installation of mechanical recording equipment, a study is undertaken aimed at the provision of word processing equipment in Family Proceedings Courts, the best way of utilising such equipment and the training necessary for both legal advisers and magistrates in the best use of such equipment. Training in this area we regard as particularly important.
9.1 The suggestion that Magistrates' Court Committees should support Family Proceedings Courts so as to improve the speed with which reasons are prepared was made in the Inspectorate's Report after a reference to the fact that, in the Family Proceedings Courts studied by them, there was an absence of uniformity in the adoption of the High Court and County Count practice of requiring the presentation by the parties of prepared chronologies, lists of agreed facts and issues in dispute. The experience of this committee accords with H. M. Inspectorate's sample. Even where such directions are made by magistrates' clerks at directions hearing it is a common experience that they are flouted.
9.2 The absence of analytic source documents, which are available to the High Court in all cases and to the County Court in all daylong cases, deprives the Family Proceedings Court of very useful judicial tools. The magistrates are, if anything, more likely to benefit from such documents than the judges of the High Court and County Court. The availability of the documents required by the Practice Direction would be of particular benefit in the process of formulating essential reasons as envisaged in our suggested amendment to the Rules. The absence of such documents makes the magistrates' task more onerous than it need be and impedes the expedition of written reasons.
9.3 At present the President of the Family Division makes practice directions with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to Rule 10.22 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 which secure, in District Registries and County Courts uniformity of practice in family proceedings. There is no equivalent power under the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991. The inclusion of the Family Proceedings Courts in the President's direction would add authority and emphasis to the direction in relation to both analytical documents and court bundles (a separate, but recurrent problem).
9.4 Unfortunately, we have been advised that it would require primary legislation to enable the President to give practice directions in Children Act matters that would be directly applicable to the Family Proceedings Courts. The delays involved in such a course are obvious. Therefore, we consider that it would be more efficient, if marginally less effective, if the Lord Chancellor were to amend the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 to provide that the Family Proceedings Courts shall give such directions, (with necessary modifications) as will carry into effect in the Family Proceedings Court the Practice Directions of the President of the Family Division to the same extent as they apply in the County Court.
9.5 In summary that course would have three main advantages:
It would ensure that the magistrates would have the benefit of the same analytic source documents as the County Courts.
It would ensure a uniformity of approach to the preparation of cases throughout the Family Justice System. Thus transfers, both lateral and vertical, would be achieved without requiring substantial changes to the basic directions.
It would add weight and authority to the directions given by the magistrates and their legal advisers.
9.6 The possibility of attempting a pilot study of a revised regime for giving reasons has been mooted. We do not exclude, but do not particularly favour such an approach. The present variation in practice would not easily allow a representative body of work to be done save on a large scale. If the pilot scheme were to be of benefit it would be costly of time and resources. We do not consider that it would be purposeful. The proposals, which we have outlined, are sufficiently flexible to permit the incremental introduction of change, in a way that can be adapted to reflect local circumstances. Our suggestions for training and the introduction of best practice would allow for adaptation and fine tuning to meet local resources as the scheme is introduced.
10. We would wish to add that we appreciate that this recommendation would place an extra burden on the lawyers preparing and appearing in the case. Whilst The more effective use of time would be of benefit to all, the professionals involved cannot be expected to take on such additional tasks without regard to their remuneration in publicly funded cases, without further endangering their willingness to undertake such work. Appropriate consideration should be given to the funding of such work.
That Magistrates' Court Committees actively support appropriate training programmes for their clerks in the conduct of directions hearings and that the Judicial Studies Board play an advisory role in establishing best practice, and the provision of training materials and opportunities.
That Rule 11A of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended (pursuant to the Lord Chancellor's powers referred to in Recommendation 4) to provide that, in addition to the duties set out in the Rule, the Guardian shall monitor the compliance of all parties with the directions of the Court and inform the clerk to the justices forthwith upon the failure of any party, expert or legal representative to comply with any direction of the Court.
That Rule 14 of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to include a provision that upon being notified that any directions order made by the court or the justices' clerk has not been complied with, the justices' clerk or the court shall consider whether to give, vary, or revoke any directions for the conduct of proceedings, including those set out at Rule 14(2)(a) to (i). The provisions of Rule 14(5), as to the mode of making orders, shall apply in like manner to this provision as to Rule 14(2).
That the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to provide that upon being notified or otherwise learning that any directions order made by the court or the justices' clerk has not been complied with, the justices' clerk or the court shall consider whether on its face the non-compliance is so grave and culpable that the court ought to consider its powers to make wasted costs order or impose a penalty under S63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and, where appropriate, the case shall be listed for the attendance of the parties and the consideration and making of such orders.
11.1 As with so many matters relating to the functioning of the Family Proceedings Courts there is an absence of firm data. However, it is such a recurrent concern of magistrates and legal advisers that directions of all sorts, from the filing of experts' reports and statements, to the lodging of bundles, are not complied with, that there can be no doubt that it is a very real problem in many, but not all courts. It must be accepted that the preparation of a complex case is not an entirely mechanical process, and if professionals (experts or lawyers) are dealing with dysfunctional parties timely compliance is not always possible. Nevertheless, it is clear that non-compliance causes delay, wasted costs and frustration at every level in the Family Proceedings Courts. Strong case management and timely transfer of cases can become more difficult to achieve where the court's directions are not complied with. The picture received is that the problem is much greater than in the County Court or the High Court.
11.2 The Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 provide that both magistrates and their legal advisers are empowered to give directions in the form of orders. There is no uniformity of practice nationally. Typically, District Judges (Magistrates Court) will hold their own directions hearing. In very few courts is it done exclusively by the magistrates. In most courts directions are almost always given by a legal adviser to the Justices. At times this can mean that a relatively junior or less experienced Legal Adviser gives them. A perceived lack of status can lead to a disrespect for and failure to respond to directions.
11.3 We understand that recent research suggests that directions hearings before clerks are well received by court users. What then accounts for the recognized difference between the compliance of court users in the Family Proceedings Courts and those in the County Court and High Court? The reasons would appear to be historic and "cultural". Family Proceedings Courts did not give directions until the Children Act 1989 came into force in 1991. Court users do not appear to show the same intrinsic respect for the directions of the Family Proceedings Courts (more often than not given by the legal adviser) as they do to those given by a judge. The clerk has no direct power of sanction and is not perceived as being vested with the same authority as a judge.
12.1 Dame Margaret Booth's report referred to the fact that there was no sanction available to the legal adviser to enforce his orders. In the sense that the legal adviser himself is unable to impose sanctions, this is correct, but it is open to the legal adviser to refer the matter to his magistrates for consideration of either a wasted cost order or, in an appropriate case, an order pursuant to S.63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which empowers Courts to enforce Orders other than for the payment of money.
"Where any person disobeys an order of a magistrates court made under an Act passed after 31st December 1879 to do anything other than the payment of money or to abstain from doing anything the court may:
order him to pay a sum not exceeding £50 for every day during which he is in default or a sum not exceeding £5000, or
commit him to custody until he has remedied his default or for a period not exceeding 2 months."
12.2 The power is commonly used against parents who fail to comply with orders for contact, on complaint by the parent in whose favour the Order has been made. The Court may exercise the power of it's own motion by virtue of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, S17 and Schedule 3, and the power is thus available to enforce directions orders.
12.3 When the Children Act 1989 came into force it was initially assumed that the Section 63 would be a powerful tool for enforcing compliance with directions. However, the sanction is highly consuming of both time and resources. It is also draconian and ill fitted to the ethos in which the Family Proceedings Courts seek to operate. Consequently it is rarely, if ever, used. It is difficult to see that it could be appropriately used, save in the most flagrant cases.
12.4 In its report H.M. Inspectorate raised the problem of noncompliance. Whilst not forming part of the key "suggestions" in the report, reference was made (2.15) to, "A set penalty or scale penalties for non-compliance with court directions might significantly strengthen the case management capability of FPCs.".
12.5 We gave careful consideration to the suggestion of providing some form of penal sanction that might be administered by the Justices Clerks. Such a scheme found little support within this working party, or among those consulted. We are convinced that the problem would be better dealt with by taking a number of more constructive and less confrontational steps that accord better with the non-adversarial nature of Family Courts.
12.6 It was recognized that whilst noncompliance is a problem throughout the Family Courts, it is generally regarded as manageable (with occasional judicial eruptions) in the County Court and High Court, and that sanctions, usually in the form of wasted costs orders, are infrequently used. Obviously, authority cannot be underpinned by illusion, and there are times when an allusion to, or the actual invoking of the court's powers in respect of committal or wasted costs is necessary. Nevertheless, by and large, there is a culture of compliance, policed by the judges without recourse to penalties. In so far as changes are necessary in the Family Proceedings Courts, they should be aimed at replicating that culture.
13. Although not contained within this section of our report, our first suggestion to bring about this change is the amendment to the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 set out at Recommendation 4 (harmonizing the directions of the Family Proceedings Courts with those required by Practice Directions in the County Court). The effective removal of distinctions between the directions in Family Proceedings Courts and the County Court, and the direct correlation of the directions found at all levels in the more serious cases, would enhance the perception of the status of directions orders given in the Family Proceedings Courts.
14.1 The scope to bring about a strengthening of the authority of orders given by magistrates' legal advisers depends to no little extent upon the experience and training of individual legal advisers in their relationship with Court Users. There is often a failure by laypersons such as medical practitioners, social workers and unrepresented parties to recognize the authority of the clerk and the mandatory nature of a direction. Therefore, they lack a sense of urgency and, whilst willing to comply, will work to their own timetable and prioritization of workload rather than meet deadlines set by the court. Some lawyers are equally at fault.
14.2 An important element in the measures we propose is the provision of enhanced training for magistrates' legal advisers involved in the conduct of directions hearings and in giving directions. Training would be directed at the conduct of the directions hearing, the case management role of the court and best practice in timetabling and directions orders. We are very mindful of the fact that the workload and practice in Family Proceedings Courts varies very widely across the country. As a result, the training and experience of both magistrates and their clerks is difficult to typify. Therefore, it is imprudent to try to recommend a uniform training programme that would accurately address the need for training in individual courts.
14.3 In order to reflect local requirements, each Magistrates' Court Committee must tailor training to local needs. Nevertheless, we are firmly of the view that there is a role for guidance in best practice training on a national level. We take the view that an important part should be played here by the Judicial Studies Board, drawing on the experience of the specialist centres and the District and Circuit Judges in the County Courts, in particular, the Care Centres. The Judicial Studies Board should be asked to produce a training package that could be used on a local or even Circuit-wide basis. We do not minimize the role to be played by the Justices' Clerks Society, but in a more unified Family Court system it is right that the wider range of resources available to the Judicial Studies Board should be made available.
14.4 Before leaving the topic of training there is a further observation we would make. It is thought that the practice of magistrates' clerks varies throughout the country and, in particular the extent to which they are seen to be pro-active in the conduct of directions hearings varies. We would not wish to be unduly prescriptive, but it is doubtful that the wide variation, which exists at present, can favorably be measured against best practice. We would therefore recommend that in the preparation of their training material the Judicial Studies Board, in association with those experienced in the field, consider whether it is possible to promote a more unified approach to best practice.
15.1 The monitoring of directions orders and the pro-active intervention of the court in the event of noncompliance has the advantage of establishing the importance of directions orders and avoiding the consequences of noncompliance. However, it has resource consequences.
15.2 In some courts, where the workload and resources have permitted, systems have been evolved where compliance with directions orders is closely monitored and impressively formal default notices are sent out (See Appendix 3). This has been found to be effective. The general introduction of such systems would obviously carry considerable benefits. Doing so has resource implications, and it assumes a management role in the conduct of the case that would be beyond many courts, if applied comprehensively. Nevertheless, what such systems clearly demonstrate is that the timely monitoring of directions orders improves compliance.
15.3 We have considered the options available and have concluded that the most appropriate method of monitoring and enforcing compliance in Public Law cases would be a partnership between the court and the parties. We recommended that the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 be amended to provide that it is the duty of the Children's Guardian to monitor compliance with directions orders and to inform the court forthwith of any failure to comply with an order. The Rules should also provided that upon being informed or learning of the noncompliance, the magistrates or their clerk should consider whether to give further directions or to relist the case before either the legal advisers or the magistrates to consider what further directions are necessary. Cafcass have been consulted informally and have agreed with this proposal.
15.4 The court should also consider whether, on its face, the noncompliance is so grave that the court should consider its power to make wasted cost orders or penal orders under S63 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Whilst we would only envisage such orders being made in the rare case, we consider that specific reference to the courts' powers in the Rules would act to bring those powers into prominence and thus, bolster the strength of directions orders.
15.5 Private Law cases are generally less complex than Public Law cases. The scope for noncompliance is less. Since there is no party with the detachment of a Guardian, we do not consider that the monitoring role can be appropriately delegated formally, without inviting increased friction between the parties. Our recommendation that Rule 14 be amended would allow for a party, where necessary, to advise the court of any material noncompliance and would give the court the discretion whether to intervene or not. Where there are fewer parties, and where they will have a direct interest in compliance, we judge that such a mechanism would be adequate. Although, we would encourage the use of direct monitoring of compliance by the court, if recourses permit.
A review of the existing criteria.
The identification of the extent to which there is divergence in practice from the principles of the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991.
Our recommendations for issues to be considered with the County Court Judges Committee.
That a comprehensive and fully resourced study be undertaken to establish the breakdown and distribution of work in each of the Family Proceedings Courts, the number and experience of Family Panel Magistrates and the current clerking provision. On the basis of such knowledge a review should be undertaken of the number and location of Family Proceedings Courts, and their staffing, both judicial and advisory. The aim of the review should be to identify the most expeditious way of dealing with Family Work, including the use of specialist centres, where appropriate, and the development of specialization in the Family Proceedings Courts.
That in order to heighten awareness of the benefits and availability of retransfer we recommend that the President of the Family Division and the Judicial Studies Board be invited to encourage the judges at all levels at the Care Centre to be proactive in identifying cases suitable for retransfer.
That administrative procedures be put in place between all Care Centres and their feeder courts at a "List Manager" level, so that appropriate and up to date information is available to judges and Family Proceedings Courts making decisions on transfer.
That the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991 be amended to grant power to the County Court to transfer to a Family Proceedings Court Private Law matters under the Children Act 1989 if, having regard to the complexity, the likely length of any hearing, and the date upon which it could be heard, it is in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Act to do so. The amendment should be in plain language. The need to liase with the Clerk to the Justices on a case by case basis under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 should be amended.
That counter staff and others dealing with the issuing of originating proceedings in the County Court are trained to alert litigants in person in cases where there are no related proceedings pending or impending in the County Court, that it is cheaper, and often quicker, to issue proceedings in the Family Proceedings Courts.
16.1 Jurisdiction in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 is common to each level of court, the High Court, the County Court and the Family Proceedings Court. The Section 92(6) and Schedule 11 Part 1 clause (2) of Children Act 1989 gives the Lord Chancellor power by order to provide for the distribution and transfer of proceedings under the Children Act 1989. That power was exercised in the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991, and provides as follows:
Private Law Applications
16.2 With two exceptions, and subject to judicial guidance, an applicant in Private law proceedings may choose in which court to start proceedings. The exceptions are:
An application to extend, vary or discharge an order (or for an order having that effect) should be made to the court making the original order.
Where there is a matrimonial suit pending in the County Court application must be made to that court.
Public Law Applications
16.3 The order is prescriptive as to where public law applications must be issued. With three exceptions they must be issued in the Family Proceedings Court. The three exceptions are:
an application to extend, vary or discharge an order (or for an order having that effect) should be made to the court making the original order.
where the application arises from a Section 37 report, in which case the application must be made to the court ordering the report.
where similar proceedings are already extant before another court.
Between the Family Proceedings Courts.
16.4 The Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991 provides that a Family Proceedings Court shall transfer proceeding to another Family Proceedings Court if it is in the interest of the child because:
it is likely to accelerate the determination of the proceedings.
to be heard with pending family proceedings.
some other reason.
From a Family Proceedings Court to a County Court.
16.5 Public Law. Of its own motion or upon application a Family Proceedings Court may transfer the majority of Public Law matters to the County Court where it is in the interest of the child for it to do so. The court must first consider the delay principle set out in Section 1(2) of the Children Act 1989 and must ask the following questions in accordance with Article 7 of the 1991 Order:
Whether the proceedings are exceptionally grave, important or complex, and in particular:
whether it would be appropriate for those proceedings to be heard together with some other family proceedings which are pending in another court; and
whether the transfer is likely to significantly accelerate the determination of the proceedings, where:
16.6 Private Law. Subject to a consideration of the delay principle, the magistrates may transfer any private law application to the County Court if they consider it in the best interest of the child to do so.
16.7 An appeal lies against an order not to transfer and it is heard by a District Judge of the County Court Care Centre.
From a County Court to a Family Proceedings Court
16.8 Public Law. Before trial the County Court may transfer a case back to the Family Proceedings Court, having considered the delay principle and where it is considered that the circumstances relied upon by the Family Proceedings Court no longer apply.
16.9 Private Law. The transfer down of private law matters was a later and unsatisfactorily drafted addition to the rules. By Article 11(2) of the Order the pre-existing provisions for transfer of Public Law matters are said to apply to the transfer of Private law applications in the County Court "(with necessary modifications)". It is must be stressed that this is most unhelpfully drafted. Probably, the situation is that before trial the County Court may transfer a pending application, having regard to the best interest of the child, the delay principle and where there are any other proceedings pending in the County Court or elsewhere.
The Family Proceedings Rules 1991 R.4.6(6) and R.4.14(3) arguably impede the process. The former requires the County Court to notify the clerk to the justices of the intention to transfer and to invite the clerk's view. The latter provide that the County Court, if minded to transfer of its own motion must give notice to the parties and an opportunity to attend or make written representations.
17.1 It is not possible to review the function of the existing criteria without a consideration of how they operate in practice. That consideration must take into account whether the criteria, in application, produces uniform results nationally, and, indeed whether it is right that they should do so. Inevitably that last question opens the door to the consideration of certain much larger issues, which are outside our remit. Our work on this topic has alerted us to these larger issues. They form the bedrock upon which our work must rest, which, we feel, makes it necessary for us to make some observations about them.
17.2 There is a regrettable dearth of meaningful statistics or analytical study in a number of areas examined during our preparation of this report. There are records of the percentage of Public Law and Privates Law cases that are disposed of in the Family Proceedings Courts nationally. Those percentages have remained fairly stable over recent years. In broadest terms, a third of Private Law cases and two thirds of Public Law cases are concluded in the Family Proceedings Courts. However, such general statistics mask a very wide range of approaches to the question of transfer from the Family Proceedings Court to the County Court. Variations are to be found in the basis and reasons for transfer, as well as in the timing of transfers.
17.3 The Inspectorate report stated, "there was a general recognition that cases are not always heard at the right level." We find this proposition impossible to disagree with, but unhelpful. As far as we are aware the extent of the problem has not been the subject of a controlled study. Our experience and the various reports we received present no consistent picture. Of those responding to the Scoping Study, we understand that 62% considered that cases were currently being heard at the right level. The Solicitors Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association in their impressionistic/anecdotal responses to us suggested that there is a tendency among the Family Proceedings Courts to resist transfer inappropriately. By contrast, at least one Presiding Family Judge of the High Court takes the firm view that the magistrates are transferring inappropriate cases to the County Court. The same thought was echoed in H.M. Inspectorates' Report.
17.4 As a matter of practice, it is clear is that the language of the present criteria, is interpreted differently in different areas. For example, some Family Proceedings Courts regularly deal with adoptions, whilst others do none. Some courts, largely where there is appropriate experience and facilities, regularly hear straightforward cases lasting 4-5 days (provided there are magistrates able to sit on consecutive days and there are no complex issues involved). This accords with a Children Act Advisory Committee Report. Others will transfer all cases over 3 days in length. This accords with the Case Law to be found referred to in most of the leading textbooks.
17.5 One of the clearest differences in the practise that is adopted by the Family Proceedings Courts is to be found in the timing of transfers to the Care Centres in Public Law matters. The period is recorded as varying between almost immediate transfer and transfer after 38 weeks (Care Orders in 2000). The data from the Care Centres shows this very mixed picture clearly, but what it also demonstrates is that the timing of transfer does not necessarily have an adverse impact on the timing of final disposal. For example, the data showed that in one Care Centre, which disposed of Public Law cases just marginally faster than average, the feeding Family Proceedings Courts were among the slowest 10% of courts to transfer up. After, consultation with the District Judges at that Care Centre, we were advised that their view was that the cases sent to them had been so well case managed that they could move swiftly to set them down in most instances. We must stress that this is not a universal picture and is merely illustrative of the difficulty in evaluating the available information.
17.6 Such wide diversities in what purports to be a Family Justice "System", we think cannot be acceptable. Somewhere within what is happening has to be a "best practice" standard. With the degree of variation, which the present data shows and experience/anecdote suggests, there must be considerable divergence from that best practice standard. That said, perhaps paradoxically, we are not convinced that as the Family Proceedings Courts are presently organised, it is sensible to attempt to identify a unified best standard. It is likely that in the present diversity of practice is to be found a pragmatic recognition of local variations in circumstances, experience, training, and resources. In other words, what now obtains, to a degree at least, is a reasonable response to an imperfect situation.
18.1 Until there is greater uniformity in the capacity of the Family Proceedings Courts themselves we are doubtful that much progress can safely be made in obtaining a uniform application of the transfer criteria. To this end we sought to establish a clear picture of the work of Family Proceedings Courts, the Family Panels and the experience of justices clerks nationally. The absence of records, analysis and statistic in a number of important areas prevents a comprehensive picture being formed of the present structure, experience and training of Family Panels. Since magistrates play such an important role in the Family Justice System we do not see this as acceptable.
18.2 Whilst there was some highly useful information made available to us, there were also very troubling lacuna. We firmly agree with the draft of the Scoping Study, which we understand argues that there is a need for the collation of information on such issues as the number of members of Family Panel Members and the training and workload of those magistrates.
18.3 We sought this information, since we were concerned about the level of inconsistency in the application of the transfer criteria being affected, in part at least by a lack of experience and training. There was only limited relevant data available. We were able to establish by reference to the "Lord Chancellor's Directions for Advisory Committees on Justice of the Peace" the maximum and minimum days which a magistrate is permitted to sit on Family Panel work. The minimum is "about 13 times" (17.10). That amounts to 6 ½ days a year, or since, the view is expressed that it should be spread out, to barely more than ½ a day per month. The maximum is 52 half-day sessions, or marginally over 2 days a month (17.5 and 17.10). We are told that in the busy centres this can be exceeded, but with out express sanction.
18.4 The minimum requirement for sitting in this specialist field we regard as too low, and not compatible with adequate training, which must depend to a material extent on in-service training whilst sitting as a "winger". The maximum placed upon experienced and frequently dedicated magistrates with an important contribution to make, not only to the judicial process, but also to the guiding and training of others, is too low. We appreciate that the present distribution of work is reflected in the sitting requirements, but we are concerned that the current level of work in some courts prevents an appropriate level of experience and training being achieved. We therefore considered the distribution of work.
18.5 There are at present over 300 centres handling Family Work. The consequence of this is that, in some places at least, they will handle marginally more than one case each week. Inevitably, the experience and confidence of magistrates and their clerks in such centres will be limited. We would stress that we are not suggesting any lack of innate ability in the magistrates or their clerks in those centres, but merely highlighting the unavoidable fact that a lack of experience and in-service training in a specialist field must be an impediment to magistrates and their clerks in the discharge of their functions.
18.6 Between the court with a minimal workload and, for example, the specialist centre at Wells Street in London, with specialist judiciary and staff, there is a sharp gradient of experience and expertise. Both the Solicitors Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association responded very enthusiastically about the court at Wells Street, and argued very strongly for its replication across the country. This is a view that appears to be widely shared among the higher judiciary. We understand that the Scoping Study expressed the view that significant improvements in expertise will only come about if there is a rationalisation in the number of locations where Family Proceedings Courts are held.
18.7 We would endorse the view of the Scoping Study, and recommend that a comprehensive and resourced study be undertaken to establish the breakdown and distribution of work in each of the Family Proceedings Court, the number and experience of Family Panel Magistrates and the current provision of legal advisers. On the basis of such knowledge a comprehensive review of the number and location of Family Proceedings Court, and their staffing, both judicial and clerical, should be undertaken. The aim of such a review should be to identify accessible centres appropriate to undertaking a higher volume of work from the region concerned and thereby to increase the experience and expertise of those doing the work. In such a way, we are confident a more satisfactory and consistent regime of transferring work will evolve. Homogenous standards will be safely applicable within a system capable of responding to them. More effective exchange of information and administrative liaison will be possible and the transfer and distribution of work more efficiently achieved.
19. It follows from what we have said that we would not seek to change the criteria for transfer as they operate under current conditions. Whilst we accept that some improvement would be possible through, for example, a national training initiative co-ordinated by the Judicial Studies Board or by the improvement of liaison between the County Courts and the Family Proceedings Courts, we would not regard the setting up of such scheme as a proportionate use of resources. Of course, if our fundamental recommendation should not find favour, we would urge that consideration be given to the implementation of such schemes.
20.1 The Booth Report and the Inspectorates' Report both refer to the fact that the number of cases transferred to the Family Proceedings Courts from the County Courts is limited (74 in a three year period), and would seek to encourage more use of the facility. We accept that in Public Law matters there is likely to be some unused scope for the retransfer of matters to the Family Proceedings Courts.
20.2 We consider that the present criteria in respect of Public Law matters are appropriate, but that the scope for retransfer is limited. The more complex cases heard at the Care Centres are almost invariably tightly timetabled to be ready for hearing very soon after the evidence is complete and the reports are available. It is rare that the issues will be sufficiently clarified and simplified prior to that making retransfer appropriate. By then it is often too late to retransfer the case to the advantage of the child or to any marked benefit to the list in the Care Centre. Nevertheless, we are of the view that more use can and should be made of the procedure, particularly in areas where the Care Centres are under pressure and the Family Proceedings Courts have capacity.
20.3 Retransfers to the Family Proceedings Courts are so rare at present that the procedure is unlikely to be in the forefront of the judges' mind in the Care Centre. The approach of the advocates to the Family Proceedings Courts and the financial disadvantage of transfer make it unlikely that an express application will be made for retransfer. In order to heighten awareness of the benefits and availability of retransfer we recommend that the President and the Judicial Studies Board be invited to encourage the judges at all levels at the Care Centre to be proactive in identifying cases suitable for retransfer. Even where cases are "going short" there can be real benefits in alleviating pressure on the Care Centre's lists and providing useful work for the Family Proceedings Courts to do.
20.4 The appropriateness of transfer in a particular case will depend on the capacity of the Family Proceedings Court to hear the case in good time. For this to be known to the County Court it is necessary that there be good lines of communication between the two courts. In the experience of this working part, this is not always the case. We recommend that administrative procedures be put in place between all Care Centres and their feeder counts at a "List Manager" level so that appropriate and up to date information is available to judges and magistrates making decisions on transfer.
21.1 Following observations in the Booth Report, the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991, Article 11 was amended to permit the transfer of Private Law cases from the County Court to the Family Proceedings Court. Unfortunately the amendment was effected in such an obscure way that, even now, about half of the leading textbooks do not treat it correctly. Additionally, in order to make a transfer the court must follow the provisions of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991, which place further hurdles in the path and act as a strong discouragement to a busy court.
21.2 We do not consider that Article 11 of the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) Order 1991 felicitously drafted, but our objection to it is not merely stylistic. We regard its provisions as unduly restrictive. We consider that the judges of the County Court should be given a broad discretion, provided they have regard to the complexity and likely length of any hearing, the date upon which the case can be hear in the Family Proceedings Court and the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.
21.3 Obviously, the best interest of the child, in a particular case, might require judicial continuity or retention in the County Court so that orders can be made in conjunction with other pending matters. We do not regard it as necessary to further specify those matters in the rules, since they would be encompassed by the duty to consider Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The amendment should be in plain language.
21.4 The present requirement to liase with the Clerk to the Justices on a case by case basis under the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 should be amended to provide that prior to transfer the County Court should confirm with the Family Proceedings Court that it can accommodate the case.
22 Greater flexibility in the criteria for the transfer of Private Law cases to the Family Proceedings Court would tend to highlight the contrast in fees paid in the County Court and the Family Proceedings Court. Legally advised litigants will have been advised and have formed a view as to whether their case is one that should be started in the County Court. Litigants in person will not have the benefit of professional advice. Whilst court staff cannot be expected to give legal advise, they should be in a position of being able to alert a litigant in person of the options available before accepting their fee. They should be told there is a choice.
23. In addition to the matters that we have set out above, many of which have consequences for the workload and administration of the County Courts, there are no additional matters that we would invite them to consider.
Booth Dame Margaret DBE (1996) Delay in Public Law Children Act Proceedings Lord Chancellor's Department
Scoping Study on Delay in Children Act Cases (March 2002) Lord Chancellor's Department
HMSI (March 2001) A Thematic Review of Case Administration in Family Proceedings Courts, Lord Chancellor's Department
"21(5)A Before making an order or refusing an application or request the justices shall agree fully upon the reasons for their decision and their findings of fact and the justices' clerk shall record in writing the name of the justice or justices constituting the court by which the decision is made.
21(5)B Having reached agreement:
Provided a mechanical recording system is operative in the court, the justice or one of the justices constituting the court may state in full the decision of the court and shall
Provided it can be done without causing undue delay the justices' clerk may at the same time as recording the constitution of the court, record in writing in consultation with the justice or justices the reasons for the court's decision and any findings of facts; or
In the event of the justice or justices deciding that the recording of their reasons and findings in accordance with Rule 21(5)(b) would cause undue delay, the justices clerk in consultation with the justice or justices may record in writing the reasons for the court's decision and any findings of fact as soon as practicable thereafter and in any event within 5 working days of the making of any order or the court refusing an application or request and cause a copy of that document to be served upon the parties to the proceedings in any event within 7 days of the making of the order or refusal of the application or request."
21(6)(a) Where the justices clerk has record in writing the full reasons for the court's decision and any findings of facts in accordance with Rule 21(5)B(ii) the court shall make any order or refuse any application or request forthwith upon the completion of such record and the court, or one of the justices constituting the court by which the decision is made shall state the decision of the court and
21(6)(b) Where the decision of the court has not been delivered in full in accordance with Rule 25(5)B(i) and where the justices clerk has not recorded in writing the full reasons for the court's decision and any findings of facts in accordance with Rule 21(5)B(iii) the court shall make any order or refuse any application or request forthwith upon reaching a decision in accordance with Rule 21(5)(a) and shall inform the parties of the essential reasons for the court's decision and the essential facts found and that the written record of the detailed reasons for the court's decision and any findings of facts will be served upon them within 7 days. The justices shall complete Form C22 forthwith.
21(6)(c) Where the parties are informed of the essential reasons for the court's decision and the essential facts found in accordance with Rule 21(6)(b) the justice's clerk shall cause them to be mechanically recorded or recorded in writing by him.
"4.22(3) (a) within 14 days after the determination against which the appeal is brought or in the case of the Family Proceedings Court within 14 days of the service of the written record of the reasons for the court's decision and any findings of fact.
4.22(3) (b) in the case of an appeal of an order made under Section 38(1), within 7 days of the making of the order or in the case of the Family Proceedings Court within 7 days of the service of the written record of the reasons for the court's decision and any findings of fact."
| Your client in:- .V. |
|
| To: | Date:- |
| YOU HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIONS GIVEN | |
| ON: | BY: |
| |
|
| DIRECTIONS RE STATEMENTS/DOCUMENTS | |
| - Statement not signed/properly declared |
 |
| - Original not received |
|
| - Insufficient number of copies (original plus 4 copies required) |
|
| - Statements not received on date ordered |
|
| - OTHER DIRECTIONS/RULES NOT COMPLIED WITH:- | |
| Please note that you must comply immediately or an application to Vary Directions must be lodged. The supervising clerk in this case |
|
| is:.................................................. |
|