HM Solicitor General v Katarzyna Paczkowska
[2022] EWHC 3458 (KB)
His Majesty's Solicitor General v Jason-Steven: Wong
27 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2684 (Fam)
High Court
A dad secretly recorded a court hearing about his child's adoption and put it online, claiming it was corrupt. The judge said this was illegal and very wrong, and will now decide what punishment the dad will get.
Key Facts
- •Jason-Steven: Wong (Defendant) covertly audio-recorded a private adoption hearing in Nottingham Family Court on 18 February 2022.
- •The recording concerned the Defendant's child and was made without the judge's permission.
- •Within days, the Defendant shared the recording with Andrew Devine, who published it on YouTube.
- •The YouTube video contained the audio recording and text alleging corruption within the Family Courts.
- •The Defendant claimed the hearing was a 'sham' and his actions were justified to expose wrongdoing.
- •The Defendant was unrepresented throughout the proceedings.
Legal Principles
Family proceedings are held in private, and unauthorized recording is contempt of court.
FPR 2010, rule 27.10
Section 9(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981) prohibits using recording equipment in court without leave.
CCA 1981, section 9(1)(a)
Section 9(1)(b) CCA 1981 prohibits publishing recordings of legal proceedings made without leave.
CCA 1981, section 9(1)(b)
Section 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA 1960) prohibits publishing information from private proceedings relating to minors.
AJA 1960, section 12(1)(a)
For contempt under section 9 CCA 1981, it is sufficient to prove knowing use of a recorder, not necessarily intent to interfere with justice.
Re Hooker [1993] COD 190; Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt 5th Ed’n
The strict liability rule (section 1 CCA 1981) does not apply to contempts akin to 'contempt in the face of the court'.
Solicitor General v Cox & another [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB)
Outcomes
The Defendant was found in contempt of court.
The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly recorded the hearing and disposed of the recording for publication, violating sections 9(1)(a) and (b) of the CCA 1981 and section 12(1)(a) of the AJA 1960.
The Defendant's defense that the hearing was a 'sham' was rejected.
The court found the Defendant's claims to be baseless.
The Defendant's claim that publication was justified in the public interest was rejected.
The court cited HM Attorney General v Paterson [2019] EWHC 1914 (QB), stating that exposing alleged fraud is not a valid defense.
A sentencing hearing was scheduled for one month later to determine the sanction.
To allow the Defendant time to obtain legal representation.