Key Facts
- •Appeal against a case management decision allowing mobile phone extraction in care proceedings.
- •Allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father.
- •Police did not conduct a phone extraction; evidence gathering fell to the family court.
- •Guardian appealed the order allowing access to communications between the child (S) and her friends.
- •The appeal concerned the interference with the Article 8 rights of S's friends.
- •The judge granted permission for the extraction without obtaining consent from the friends' parents.
- •The extraction covered a three-year period of communications.
Legal Principles
Article 8 right to privacy
ECHR
Article 6 right to a fair trial
ECHR
Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010)
FPR 2010
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) and Practice Direction 31B
CPR 1998, CPR PD 31B
Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure
AG Guidelines 2022
Relevance and proportionality in disclosure
Common law, CPR PD 31B
Outcomes
Appeal partially allowed.
The judge's decision to allow the mobile phone extraction without consent from the friends' parents was upheld. However, the timeframe was reduced and a procedure for sifting and redacting irrelevant material was introduced to protect the privacy of third parties.
Three-year timeframe for extraction deemed excessive.
The timeframe was reduced to a more appropriate period focused on the relevant period of the allegations.
A process of sifting and redaction implemented.
To ensure only relevant material is disclosed and to protect third party privacy rights, in line with police practices.