There is no case for lay justices’ names not to be in the public domain when decisions are made, a High Court judge has said.

In the family division case of Derbyshire County Council v Shannon Marsden & Ors, Mrs Justice Lieven considered an application by the BBC, the Telegraph and the Press Association for the release of documents relating to care proceedings.

The case – and care proceedings – centre on Child A, the sibling of Finley Boden, a child who was killed by his parents on Christmas Eve 2020. Finley and Child A were the subject of care proceedings and had been returned to their parents following a hearing two months previously.

The judgment said the release of the relevant documents, in a redacted capacity to protect the identity of Child A, would allow ‘press reporting and debate to be based on full information, as opposed to speculation and partial knowledge of the circumstances of the case’.

Considering whether the names of the magistrates and legal adviser should also be published, the judge said: ‘It is important to be clear that the statutory restrictions on information relating to care proceedings have the purpose of protecting the anonymity of the children (and possibly their families) in proceedings rather than professionals involved.’

No party submitted that the magistrates should not be named.

The judge added: ‘The role of the judge is one that beyond any doubt requires public accountability and openness. Society is necessarily very grateful for the role undertaken by lay justices for no remuneration and involving giving up much of their time.

‘However, lay justices are judges and, in cases such as this, making very important decisions that impact on children and families in the most significant way. As such, there is no case for their names not to be in the public domain when decisions are made, in the same way as would the names of judges who had made such decisions.’

Considering the role of the legal adviser, the judge acknowledged that they are not members of the judiciary. She added: ‘However, during the course of the hearing it was made clear that a panel of lay justices cannot make a decision without the presence and involvement of a legal adviser.

‘It follows from this ... that a lay bench cannot make a decision unless a legal adviser exercises their functions. As such, the legal adviser is an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.

‘It appears to me to be right that their names can in principle be placed in the public domain.' She found that the media are entitled to name both the lay magistrates and the legal adviser involved in the case.

 

This article is now closed for comment.