CC v NMCM [2026] EWFC 196 (B)

Case No DE25P07294[2026] EWFC 196 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT DERBY
Date 13 th July 2026
Derby Justice Centre, St Mary’s Gate, Derby, DE1 3JR
Before
District Judge Vine
Between
CCApplicantNMCMRespondent
Hearing Hearing date: 13 th July 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was given ex tempore in court on 13 th July 2026 in the presence of the partiesDistrict Judge Vine:
[1]This is a short judgement following concerns as to the Article 6 rights of the respondent in a finding of fact hearing. This is a case where the applicant, who is making the allegations in Children Act 1989 proceedings, is represented by counsel and the respondent appears in person with the assistance of a Qualified Legal Representative ‘QLR’. This is a case where the mother has not had contact with her young children since May 2025 and therefore, the outcome of this finding of fact hearing is of great importance.[2]There has already been significant delay in this matter being heard by the court. The matter was to be heard in April 2026 but unfortunately a QLR had not been appointed in error. The matter was then to be heard in May 2026 but was adjourned due to judicial non-availability. Therefore, it was at the forefront of the court’s mind that this matter needed to be heard if at all possible today and tomorrow so that the case as a whole could progress in the best interest of the children.[3]Unfortunately, the court was faced with cross-examination of the applicant by the QLR that called significantly into question the fairness of the hearing. In a case with 5 substantive allegations, and with no less than 16 examples of the alleged behaviours, the court was concerned that after only 30 minutes, the QLR informed the court that there were no more questions to be asked. Again for context, the court bundle runs to 596 pages and includes significant amount of police and local authority disclosure. At no point was the applicant asked any questions about any of the information contained within any part of the court bundle. Unfortunately, the questions that were asked were of limited evidential value to the court, if any, and the respondent’s case was not put on any of the allegations or alleged incidents.[4]1 hour and a half was then given to the QLR after this was pointed out in order to try and ensure that the case could fairly proceed. Despite this adjournment, further attempts at cross-examination could only be categorised as evidence in chief and again, in no way put the case of the respondent to the applicant.[5]It also came to light that the QLR did not appear to be using his own copy of the up to date bundle in court, despite the same having been sent at least 7 days before the hearing and was in fact relying on an out of date copy of the schedule of proposed findings given to him by the respondent which no longer appeared within the trial bundle.[6]In the statutory guidance for QLRs it states:
‘3.5 Conducting the Cross-Examination The qualified legal representative should prepare questions which put the ‘essence’ of the prohibited party’s case to the witness, on those parts of the witness’ case which may have a significant impact on the outcome of the proceedings. Questions put in cross-examination must be for the purpose of testing the evidence of the witness or witnesses, of putting the prohibited party’s case to the witness and enabling the court to be provided with evidence to enable it to make a properly informed decision on the issues that it has to determine. The qualified legal representative retains the discretion to manage the cross examination as it develops (i.e. to formulate questions and act dynamically in response to answers given by the witness), so that the cross-examination satisfies the essence and significant impact test. But the court-appointed qualified legal representative must always keep in mind the limited nature of their role and avoid the instinct to act as advocate for the prohibited party’s wider case. The qualified legal representative must be cognisant of the fact that the cross-examination of a witness must always be conducted with sensitivity and with due regard to any vulnerabilities of the witness known to the qualified legal representative.’
[7]This bares repeating because it is sadly not the first time that the court has had experience of a QLR attending court and simply reading out questions that a lay party has prepared without any independent analysis of the evidence within the bundle. That is not the role or purpose of a QLR. As the guidance clearly states, the role of the QLR is that it is the QLR who should prepare questions which puts the essence of the individuals case and then actively respond to answers given and allow that to inform their future questions.[8]Of further concern to this court, was that it became also very clear that the QLR’s knowledge of the information within the bundle was lacking at best – exclaiming surprise when the applicant spoke about a particular incident and asking questions which asked why this allegation had never been mentioned before – when any cursory reading of the statements alone would have seen this mentioned numerous times. ‘The court-appointed qualified legal representative’s central purpose is to ensure that the fairness of the proceedings is maintained, by carrying out the cross-examination which the prohibited party is prohibited from performing.’[9]That is a quote from the statutory guidance. Unfortunately, it appears as if this has been forgotten.[10]I am satisfied that a number of attempts were made by the court to ensure that if at all possible, this finding of fact hearing proceeded as planned. However, despite repeated attempts to attempt to rectify the situation and ensure that the hearing was fair, the point was reached where the court was no longer content that justice could be done by continuing. The impact of the outcome of a finding of fact hearing can be far reaching. It is imperative that the hearing is fair, that there is a proper exploration of the wide canvas of evidence and a proper and thorough exploration of the allegations relied upon and the evidence for those allegations. That did not take place in any meaningful way and I am satisfied, that it is not fair for this hearing to proceed. It would not be fair to make determinations on the allegations in the face of such wanting representation and lack of exploration of any piece of evidence within the court bundle and it would not be fair to the children at the heart of this case to allow it to continue.[11]I am discharging the appointment of the QLR[12]I am adjourning this case and I will be asking the court to appoint a new QLR appending the statutory guidance to the request.[13]I urge upon the respondent that if at all possible, to consider funding legal representation for the adjourned hearing, to reapply for legal aid or to approach a pro-bono charity such as Advocate to see if legal representation can be obtained to ensure that the hearing of this matter is full, through and most importantly fair.