Revised Public Law Outline to be finalised on 3 March, says senior judge

The final version of the revised Public Law Outline will be finalised by the Family Procedure Rules Committee on 3 March 2014 and published shortly afterwards, the President of the Family Division has said.

In his latest View from the President’s Chambers, Sir James Munby said changes to be incorporated in the light of experience with the pilot PLO would be few.

The President said:

  • There will be clearer guidance in relation to the listing of EPO (emergency protection order), ICO (interim care order) and other urgent hearings.
  • The CMH (case management hearing) will be required to be listed not before Day 12 and not later than Day 18, “thus allowing for greater flexibility and some relaxation of the timescale”.
  • The CMO (case management order), “which has been much criticised”, will be improved.
  • There will be scope for an urgent preliminary CMH to allow for the giving of appropriate directions after the initial directions on allocation but before the CMH.
  • Greater prominence will be given to the issues identified in Re E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam).

Sir James added that the application form in public law cases was being revised to accommodate changes in the PLO and make it “more user-friendly for the applicant, the respondents and the court alike”. It will also be finalised by the rules committee on 3 March 2014.

Use of the application form will be required from 22 April 2014, the President said.

This is when, subject to timely completion of the Parliamentary process in relation to the Children and Families Bill, it is planned to introduce the reforms to the family justice system.

Key changes include:

  • The new single Family Court;
  • Implementation of the final version of the revised Public Law Outline in public law cases; and
  • Implementation in private law cases of the Child Arrangements Programme.

In other comments, the President said he would be monitoring the impact of the Practice Guidance on Transparency in the Family Courts which he issued on 16 January 2014.

He added that he would shortly be issuing, for discussion and comment, further draft practice guidance dealing with what he will propose should be the next step, “namely the disclosure to the media of certain categories of document, subject, of course, to appropriate restrictions and safeguards”.

Sir James also revealed that it was unlikely that a provision in the Revised Bundles Practice Direction limiting the size of the bundle can be brought into effect before July this year.

This was “because of ongoing discussions between the Ministry of Justice, the Legal Aid Authority and the legal professions about the financial implications of this much-needed change”.

The delay was “a matter of regret”, the judge said.

At the end of his View from the President’s Chambers (the ninth so far), Sir James highlighted two important recent decisions of significance in relation to practice in public law cases.

They are:

  1. A Local Authority v DG and others [2014] EWHC 63 (Fam): in which Keehan J “strongly criticised the wholesale failure of all the parties to comply with the court’s directions and gave important guidance as to the practice to be adopted where there are concurrent public law and criminal proceedings, in particular in relation to section 98 of the Children Act 1989”.
  2. Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and Reasons) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam): where Pauffley J “had to deal with circumstances which I hope will never recur”.

“Both judgments, if I may say so, will repay careful consideration by all public law practitioners,” Sir James said.