High Court finds father in contempt of court over covert recording of adoption proceedings relating to his child

The High Court has found that a father made a covert audio-recording of a substantive court hearing in adoption proceedings, and within a few days, disposed of the recording and associated documents to another “with a view to their publication on YouTube”.

Mr Justice Cobb found “beyond reasonable doubt” that the defendant was in contempt of court.

Outlining the background to the case, the judge noted that the application was brought by the Solicitor General under Parts 19 and 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

It was said that the alleged contempt arose in two ways:

i) That the defendant made a covert audio-recording of a substantive court hearing in adoption proceedings conducted at the Family Court, sitting in private, on 18 February 2022.

ii) That, within a few days of the court hearing, the defendant disposed of the recording and the associated documents to another with a view to their publication on YouTube.

The adoption proceedings brought by a county council concerned the defendant's child.

At the conclusion of the hearing on 18 February 2022, the Family Court judge refused the defendant and the child's mother leave to oppose the adoption and went on to make the adoption order.

Mr Justice Cobb said that on or about 27 February 2022, a YouTube video was posted which contained an audio recording of the entire court hearing, with accompanying text on a rolling screen.

On 1 March 2022, the county council wrote to the defendant [the Local Authority Letter] requesting that he remove the film from YouTube.

On 2 March 2022, a further video was published on YouTube ("Video 2"). The Local Authority letter was also shared in the video.

On the same day a further video was published on YouTube ("Video 3"). The Local Authority letter was once again shared on screen.

Outlining submissions from the parties, Mr Justice Cobb said that it was the Solicitor General's case that on 18 February 2022, the defendant “covertly made an audio recording of an adoption court hearing”, and that this recording was made “without the permission of the judge”.

The Solicitor General further alleged that between 18 February 2022 and 27 February 2022, the defendant had passed the recording (electronically) to another, “who apparently lives outside of the jurisdiction, and who published it on his YouTube channel”.

The applicant submitted that the defendant had accepted his culpability for the contempt, as when arrested by the police, he was heard to say: "the source of the court orders are fraudulent, that's why I made the recording". The judge confirmed: “I have viewed the bodycam footage of this event and confirm that these are his words”.

Mr Justice Cobb said the primary argument raised in the defendant's defence of the application was that the hearing before the Family Court judge was a "sham hearing", in "fabricated Family Court proceedings used by the proven violent paedo-sexual gang falsely and repeatedly using the authority of the courts as cover".

The defendant further contended that he was entitled to publish the recording as it was in the public interest ("in good faith of public affairs") to expose the criminal behaviour of the Family Court.

Outlining his findings, Mr Justice Cobb rejected the defendant's primary assertion that the hearing on 18 February 2022 was a "sham court", not “authentic”, not held in a properly constituted courtroom, and was not heard by a duly appointed judge, or one authorised to hear public law CA 1989 / ACA 2002 cases, noting: “These propositions are all utterly baseless.”

Turning to the Solicitor General's case, he found that he was “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt” that the defendant “knowingly brought a hand-held recording device into the Family Court on 18 February 2022 and intended to, and did in fact, use it to record the entirety of the hearing”.

The judge added he was further satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the defendant 'disposed of' the recording to another, who subsequently posted the same, together with other material related to the proceedings on YouTube.

Mr Justice Cobb concluded: “There is, arguably, no category of case within the wide range of our diverse jurisdictions which is more sensitive or private than those concerning the adoption of a young child.

“[…]The public identification of a child who has been placed for adoption following due process of law has very significant implications for that child, and for the family with whom the child is placed; it may threaten the security and confidentiality of the placement, and the emotional stability of the child and their new parents.”

He continued: “It is, in my judgment, a most serious contempt of court to defy the long-established principle of privacy in adoption cases by covert recording of a hearing; the contempt is aggravated when the recording is published. Whether proceedings are current or completed, the protection granted by Parliament remains operational.”

The judge proposed to list the application “in about a month's time” to consider sanction for the proven contempts.

He added: “I take this opportunity to remind the Defendant of his right to have a publicly funded lawyer. It is not too late for him to receive legal advice, and benefit from representation at the next hearing.”