Jon Comlay, Author at Parklane Plowden

Expertise

Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Lies in Family Law Proceedings – Clarification from the Court of Appeal

H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261  Avaia Williams, a pupil barrister under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, analyses the recent judgment in H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261, which provides insight into the handling of lies and credibility in family proceedings. This case clarifies the treatment of lies in family courts, particularly as it relates to fact-finding in child welfare cases and the distinction between the criminal and family courts.  Full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1261.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  Facts  This case arose in care proceedings for three children following the youngest suffering bruising and fractures while in the care of their mother and her new partner (who appeared as an intervenor). Following an extensive fact-finding hearing, the trial judge concluded that both the mother and the intervenor were in a “pool of perpetrators” but could not identify either as the likely perpetrator on the balance of probabilities. Both adults had opportunity and motive, and both had told multiple lies during the proceedings, including that their relationship had ended a significant time prior to the hearing.  The mother’s appeal focused on the judge’s analysis of the identified lies and the Judge’s reliance upon the lies thereafter.  Legal Background  In addressing the mother’s appeal, the Court noted that the trial judge had correctly identified the relevant legal basis for considering lies, notably <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/136.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Re H-C (children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136</a> which held:  “in an appropriate case, a judge will not infrequently directly refer to the authority of Lucas in giving a judicial self-direction as to the approach to be taken to an apparent lie. Where the "lie" has a prominent or central relevance to the case, such a self-direction is plainly sensible and good practice […[ there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should therefore take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt."  As well as the recent case of <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/451.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451</a>, in which the Court suggested it would be good practice:  “…when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt.”  Lord Justice Peter Jackson highlighted the importance of examining lies within the specific context of family proceedings, where they often play a role in assessing credibility but do not always carry the same implications as in criminal trials.  The Appeal  The mother’s appeal raised three grounds:  The Handling of Lies: She argued that the trial judge inadequately analysed her lies and should have excluded them from consideration unless they indicated guilt.  Identification of the Perpetrator: She contended that the judge had not sufficiently distinguished between her and the intervenor as potential perpetrators.  Factual Findings: She claimed the judge’s conclusion was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  Lord Justice Peter Jackson responded with a clarification on the interpretation of lies in the family context. He noted that while the Lucas direction’s caution is prudent, it should not lead to the exclusion of lies from consideration unless their only explanation is concealment of guilt.  The key passage is illustrative:  “I would therefore make one observation about the description of good practice in Re A, B and C. At [58(iii)] it is said that the court should seek to identify the basis on which it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. That draws on the slightly different jury direction in the Crown Court Compendium… which requires that a lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against a defendant if the jury are sure that it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of the defendant, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to the defendant's guilt.”  Lord Justice Jackson continued, rejecting an overly literal application of Re A, B, and C in the family context:  “Relying on a literal reading of Re A, B and C, Mr Barnes [for the mother] further argues that the court is required to exclude a lie from consideration altogether in any case where it cannot be satisfied… that the only explanation for it is to conceal guilt. I do not accept that submission… A general exclusionary rule, exclusively directed at lies, would be inconsistent with the duty on the court to consider all the evidence… It will be sufficient for the judge to recall that the true significance of a lie must be carefully assessed, for all the well-known reasons noted by the judge in the present case.”  In sum, he stated, “Any other approach would hamper the court in carrying out its important assessment of credibility and its evaluation of particular issues of fact.”  Commentary  This judgment offers valuable guidance on how family courts should consider lies within fact-finding hearings. Although the Lucas direction advocates restraint when considering lies, the court’s duty in child welfare cases is to weigh all evidence and assign due significance to lies where relevant to credibility or a party’s overall behaviour.  Re H (Children) thus brings a refinement to the guidance provided in Re A, B, and C, clarifying that courts are not required to apply a restrictive interpretation in family matters. In assessing lies, judges may consider these as part of a holistic view without needing to exclude them unless they clearly indicate guilt. This more flexible approach ensures that the court can evaluate the broader context of each case, rather than being unduly limited by any single direction.  Lies must therefore be assessed with a sense of proportion, contextualising them as part of the overall picture. It also reaffirms that lies should be contextualised, not as proof of guilt but as part of a broad evaluation of credibility and reliability.  The decision reinforces a measured approach to lies in family proceedings, ensuring that courts can consider all evidence without being overly constrained by the Lucas direction. By clarifying that lies can be relevant even if their purpose is not solely to conceal guilt, the judgment supports the family court’s focus on a holistic assessment aimed at safeguarding the child’s welfare, whose interests remain paramount, over that of the protections placed on parents which the Lucas direction otherwise seeks to safeguard.  With different aims and procedural basis, notably the interests of the child in each case being at the centre of the Courts decision, it is only right that the Family Court not strap itself firmly to Lucas, evolution of this direction must be very carefully handled, but allowing a more flexible approach to lies, the Court is able to consider the wider picture to cases.

Parklane Plowden named Barristers’ Chambers of the Year at Personal Injury Awards 2024

Parklane Plowden Chambers are delighted to have been named Barristers’ Chambers of the Year at the Personal Injury Awards 2024.  Chambers are delighted to make a positive difference within the legal sector and local community through charitable work. To find out more about the work Chambers does to make a positive difference, please click <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/positive-difference/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  Congratulations to all the winners and nominees!

Leila Benyounes to speak at the British Orthopaedic Trainees Association Congress

The British Orthopaedic Trainees Association’s (BOTA) flagship event is taking place from the 26th – 29th November at the Edwardian Hotel, Manchester.  Leila is leading the medico-legal session on 28th November on Inquests and Coroner’s Court and running a Mock Inquest for delegates.  Leila is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked as a leading junior in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence and Inquests and Inquiries. Her full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

He Said, She Said: Witness Credibility in Deakin-Stephenson v Behar & Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)

Background:  The Claimant attended hospital in November 2016 following pains in her abdomen and was diagnosed with diverticulitis. Treatment of the abdominal condition was attempted but on the 5th day of her time in hospital, the disease progressed. A surgical procedure was carried out on the 6th day, which settled her condition. On the 7th day, the Claimant collapsed and emergency Hartmann’s surgery was performed, resulting in the Claimant being left with a stoma. The prognosis was for chronic abdominal pain and PTSD, amongst other conditions.  There were a significant number of unknown facts in the case. For example, the parties disagreed about the chronology, consent process and requests for referrals to a specialist colorectal surgeon.  Claimant’s evidence:  The Claimant appears to have given in a generally unfavourable way. However, the judge noted that “the court places limited weight on demeanour as a reliable guide to where the truth lies”. Instead, the content of the evidence was more important. The Claimant’s answers were thought to contain notable inconsistencies when compared to the First Defendant’s contemporaneous evidence.  A central dispute between the parties was whether the Claimant did indeed, as she submitted, ask Mr Behar for a repeated referral to a specialist colorectal surgeon. When cross-examined, she became “abrasive” and did not answer questions directly. She answered by providing “speeches”, often with medical material she has since learned of upon being diagnosed with her condition. On the referral issue, she undermined her point on several occasions. Emails and letters from the Claimant herself undermined the reliability of her account.  The Claimant’s occasional sarcasm was also considered to be “unhelpful” and “unnecessary”. Overall, her evidence was thought to be “confused and contradictory”. The medical evidence contradicted what was said at trial, presenting her as unconvincing.  The Judge concluded that, while she has faced significant trauma from the events of November 2016, her account raised “serious concerns” regarding the accuracy and probability of what happened. It was found to be “inaccurate, unreliable and improbable”.  First Defendant’s evidence:  Mr Behar was able to explain his medical notes and identify his entries. He accepted that some of his entries were unclear. The evidence was complicated by inconsistent contemporaneous records. Mr Behar’s record-keeping was poor with gaps about meetings with the Claimant. Despite this, he was found to be honest and the fact that the records existed, albeit incomplete, were key to assessing what was the most likely version of events.  The near-contemporaneous evidence supported his account. His honest demeanour was considered alongside the records. The fact that he acknowledged his shortcomings of making errors was in his favour. He was deemed to be telling the truth while the records contradicted C’s account.  Mr Justice Dias KC assessed both witnesses by considering the full context of each account. This approach looks records, expert evidence and common sense.  Decision:  The Judge, Mr Justice Dias KC, sitting in the High Court, considered both accounts of the Claimant and the First Defendant.   The Judge decided that the Claimant’s evidence lacked credibility on several issues. Her statements were misleading and the court deemed her evidence as “weak” overall.  Ultimately, it was held that there was no breach of duty and no causative breach by the First Defendant.  In contrast, the First Defendant was assessed by the court as honest, fluent and fair. His professionalism and credibility were commended.  Analysis:  This case is a useful example of how to approach the issue of witness credibility. It was specifically and repeated stated that demeanour is not especially significant but that it will be considered when assessing witnesses. This is particularly important when the factual matrix of the case is unclear. In order for the court to make a finding of fact, the evidence from witnesses must also fit together with the contemporaneous records, expert evidence, common sense and probability.  In addition, practitioners should remember the importance of detailed record keeping and how it may detriment a case. Those making the record should be prepared for every word, down to adverbs, to be scrutinised. The record-keeping process, and the content of the records themselves, may be crucial on a case with key factual disputes.    Finally, the judgment is also useful as it helpfully outlines 13 principles of fact-finding (see  paragraph 53 of the Judgment). In summary:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li> The burden of proof rests exclusively on the person making the claim who must prove the claim to the conventional civil standard of a balance of probabilities.</li>  <li>Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly (fairly and safely) be drawn from the evidence, but not mere speculation.</li>  <li> The court must survey the "wide canvas" of the evidence.</li>  <li>Evidence must not be evaluated "in separate compartments" but must "consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence".</li>  <li>The process must be iterative, considering all the evidence recursively before reaching any final conclusion.</li>  <li>The court must decide whether the fact to be proved happened or not. Fence-sitting is not permitted.</li>  <li>The law invokes a binary system of truth values – a judge must decide whether or not it happened.</li>  <li>There are important and recognised limits on the reliability of human memory as set out in Gestmin SCPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd EWHC 3560 (Comm) at paras 15-22, per Leggatt J.</li>  <li>The court "takes account of any inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred as part of the natural process of reasoning".</li>  <li>Contemporary documents are "always of the utmost importance" (Onassis) but in their absence, greater weight will be placed on inherent probability or improbability of witness's accounts.</li>  <li>The judge can use findings affecting the credibility of a witness on one issue in respect of another.</li>  <li>However, the court must be vigilant to avoid the fallacy that adverse credibility conclusions/findings on one issue are determinative of another and/or render the witness's evidence worthless.</li>  <li>Decisions should not be based "solely" on demeanour, but when fairly assessed in context, it retains a place in the overall evaluation of credibility.</li> </ol>  Conclusion:  The case provides a useful lesson in not only the content of witness statements but also how witnesses present. Ultimately, contemporaneous records will be favoured, provided the records are clear and logical. If there is a dispute about witness credibility, the account that aligns with the contemporaneous evidence is likely to be the most probable, as in this case.  The full judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2338.html#para151" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Adoption Records – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

In this second article in a series covering the Public Law Working Group’s recommendations for best practice for adoption, I consider Chapter 2 of the PLWG report. This section covers the crucial issue of access to adoption records. For children who have been adopted, and their families, the ability to access information on birth families can be vital in facilitating connections and ensuring that the child’s sense of identity is secured. This chapter advocates for a simpler, accessible and streamlined approach to accessing records.  As with the rest of the articles in this series, this will follow the general chronology and sub-headings of the report to ensure consistency and to break the report down into a more bite sized and user-friendly guide to what the report recommends.  Introduction  It is of huge importance to those who have been adopted to be able to access information about their birth families. Whilst there is of course a need for sensitivity, the historic “shroud of secrecy” that has cloaked adoption for many years is to the clear detriment of all involved. There are several routes to accessing information, most notably via the adoption agency, however, the Courts have seen an increase in requests for access to information, prompting the Working Group to consider whether there is a need for reform.  Following work on the PLWG report starting, the individuals behind a significant amount of the research which formed part of the report, announced a project that seeks to identify and address the barriers to tracing – A briefing paper was prepared on this which the PLWG notes covers this area in greater detail, including some important recommendations (practitioners may find this briefing paper of use).  Routes To Obtaining Access to Records  The Working Group identified numerous routes to obtaining access to records. These routes are dependant on who is making the application and the date on which the adoption took place.  Pre-Commencement Adoptions are those adoptions which took place prior to 30 December 2005, the following are routes to obtain access to records:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Adults adopted before 12 November 1975 – can apply to the General Register Office (GRO) for a copy of their original birth certificate. The GRO must also provide certain information from the Adoption Contact Register. If the applicant does not know the original names of their birth parents (as is common pre-1975), counselling is mandatory. Those adults can apply to the GRO who will send forms to the applicants relevant Local Authority or Adoption Support Agency (ASA). Once the birth certificate is obtained, adoption records can be applied for.</li>  <li>Those adopted between November 1975 and December 2005 – can also apply to the GRO in the same way as above. Birth parents were not offered anonymity during this period so counselling is not a requirement.</li>  <li>Court application post GRO information – the information provided by the GRO above will identify the Court who ordered the adoption, an application can then be made for the details of the adoption agency, once they are identified the adoption agency can be applied to for records. These forms of application are usually made by the Local Authority or ASA. If the adoption agency is not in possession of the files, the court directly can provide this information.</li>  <li>Intermediary applications – under The Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement Adoptions) Regulations 2005, an individual can apply for information. Such information can not be disclosed without consent of the subject of the information. This route may be subject to charge whereas other routes are not. This route is available to those who have been adopted, their birth relatives and anybody under s.1 CFA 2014 can apply.</li>  <li>Subject Access Request – adopted adults can apply to the Local Authority for any information about time they have spent in care, these records fall outside the remit of adoption regulations and are governed by data protection legislation. These requests must be dealt with in line with the Data Protection Act 2018.</li>  <li>Direct court applications – anybody can apply pursuant to rules 53(4) Adoption Rules 1984 and 32(6) Magistrates Courts (Adoption) Rules 1984. Such documents require leave of the court to be subject to disclosure. This route is not limited to specific individuals.</li>  <li>Exceptional application – orders can be made against the Registrar General to disclose information to obtain a certified copy of birth under s.79(4) ACA 2002 on application by any person only in ‘exceptional circumstances’.</li> </ul>  Post-Commencement Adoptions are those adoptions which took place on or after 30 December 2005, applications for information regarding these adoptions are more regulated, with the following being routes to obtain access to records:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>S.60(2)(a) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply to the adoption agency for information which will enable them to obtain their birth certificate. The adopted person or the adoption agency can then apply to the GRO. The adoption agency can apply to prevent disclosure in exceptional circumstances.</li>  <li>S.60(2)(b) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply to the adoption agency for the information shared with adopters during proceedings (this will be the Child Permanence Report and other relevant information).</li>  <li>S.60(4) ACA 2002 – allows an adopted adult to apply for those documents listed in rule 14.18 and PD14F FPRs. Such disclosure is subject to redaction (unlike under s.60(2)).</li>  <li>S.61 ACA 2002 – allows a person to apply for information from an adoption agency which is related to an adult. There is a discretion to provide this and the agency may need to seek permission to disclose information, and there is a requirement to take reasonable steps to obtain the views of those adults to whom the information relates. Under s.62, a similar provision exists to obtain protected information about a child.</li>  <li>Subject Access Request – as above, an individual can apply for their care records pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018.</li> </ul>  Finally, there are two routes under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to obtain information. Firstly, pursuant to Rule 14.24 which allows documents to be disclosed by direction of the court. Secondly, pursuant to Rule 14.14 which provides the Court with discretion to communicate information. There is no restriction or guidance on the use of Rule 14.14.  The PLWG Report appends a flowchart at Appendix A of Chapter 2 which shows the routes to obtaining the original birth certificate, seeking information via intermediary services, pre-commencement access, and post-commencement access.  Which Agencies Hold Records  Adoption records are, in the first instance, kept by the relevant adoption agency, that being the agency responsible for placing the child. This could the via a Local Authority or voluntary agency. In 2020, responsibility for disclosure was passed from the local adoption agency level to regional adoption agencies. The expectation being a smaller number of more structured and resources agencies should be able to better address the deficits seen in adoption.  The regional agencies tend to hold responsibility for adoption support, but there remains confusion in where to seek support. Some agencies contract work and some do not. In addition, many records are still held in paper format.  Supporting an individual to access records is a significant time commitment which the responsible agencies in England and Wales simply do not have the resources to dedicate. There are lengthy waiting lists as demand outweighs available resources.  Applications to Court  Usually reserved for situations where difficulties have been encountered in accessing information via the adoption agency, though there is no restriction to only these situations. An issue with applications through the courts is that many courts have closed or merged into combined centres; there is no register or facility which identifies where records from these courts will be.  There is limited guidance available to courts on what the approach should be for adoption disclosure applications made pursuant to the general powers in rules 53(4) and 32(6) and FPR 14.14 and 14.24; judges across the country have raised concerns about how to determine these applications.  There is only one reported case which deals with this issue, in Re X (Adopted Child) Access to Court File [2014] EWFC 33, several principles were laid down in relation to an application by the daughter of an adopted person where the adopted person and adoptive parents were all deceased, the principles were:  <ol style="list-style-type:upper-roman" class="wp-block-list"> <li>The court has discretion whether to disclose information contained within the court file.</li>  <li>The court should have regard to all the circumstances and exercise this discretion in a just manner.</li>  <li>Maintaining confidence in the confidentiality of adoption files is an important public policy consideration.</li>  <li>The time since the order and whether any affected parties are deceased are both important considerations.</li>  <li>The connection between the applicant and the information sought should be considered.</li>  <li>The court must take account of the impact of disclosure on any relevant third parties (though it should consider if any safeguards could mitigate this).</li> </ol>  Whilst this guidance provides some structured approach, in practice judges report this guidance is of limited assistance as the facts of Re X were so uncontroversial with respect to making the disclosure.  Current Practice  The PLWG conducted a country wide survey to consider how disclosure applications are dealt with. From this survey, the Working Group identified 10 key findings:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Most requests are from adults regarding pre-commencement adoptions.</li>  <li>Many services noted insufficient resources to meet demand.</li>  <li>Service availability varies across the country.</li>  <li>The approach to applications, and the responses received, is inconsistent.</li>  <li>Support agencies and the courts both identified an increase in demand.</li>  <li>The judiciary deal with applications inconsistently, including the detail required on the application, the criteria applied in deciding, the level of judge who deals with applications, and whether applications require a hearing.</li>  <li>Courts set their own timetables and some courts do not prioritise requests.</li>  <li>There is confusion about the difference in pre and post commencement adoption.</li>  <li>There are few services available for pre-commencement adoptions.</li>  <li>A quarter of courts charge a fee, with there being no standard fee.</li> </ol>  The process as it stands is inconsistent, confusing, time consuming and inadequate. Given the importance of access to information for adopted people and their families, the current practice is not good enough.  Recommendations  The report makes several recommendations, all of which were agreed and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation. These recommendations are  explored below, however an overriding theme from those concerned was:  “…that adoption should be recognised for the lifelong process that it is, and that those affected should have access to services and support at a point in their lives when it is needed.”  Training – Experiential training may assist professionals to understand the real world impact of adoption. Those who prepare adoption reports should receive sufficient training and this should be available to all professionals across the board of adoption work. The Working Group also recommend that adopters receive training on information sharing and contact with birth relatives.  Service Information – Comprehensive information should be available online across the spectrum of relevant stakeholders, including adoption agencies, support services, the courts and more. There should be simple advice on how to apply for a birth certificate, adoption records, and how to engage with intermediary services. The Working Group has prepared a template application form, but recommends a template is formulated by Adopt England and NASW to ensure national consistency.  National Registers – There needs to be greater clarity as to the whereabouts of adoption records:  “www.familyconnect.org.uk and www.adoptionsearchreunion.org.uk are of great assistance to service users and professionals alike, and Family Connect is developing into the ‘go to’ hub for finding out about adoption agency records and how to find relatives lost through adoption.”  The PLWG endorses a central and maintained source of adoption information. All agencies endorsed the need for an easier way to locate records and a National Register of Court Adoption Records should be established via cooperation with HMCTS.  Record Retention – There should be a protocol to standardise archiving, retention and retrieval of information. The PLWG endorses the recent good practice guide, <a href="https://www.accesstocarerecords.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CALGG_FINAL-adoption-and-care-experienced-records2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The records of Adopted and Care-Experienced People – Good Practice Guidance for Record-Keepers and Care Professionals</a>. Further, it is recommended that adoption records are retained for at least 100 years, it being recognised that descendants of adopted people have a stake in making applications many years down the line. This 100 year period would reflect that already in place with the courts.  Counselling – Under Schedule 2 ACA 2002, counselling is only required for those adopted pre November 1975. Even then, the counselling is in the form of advice, guidance and support, not therapeutic counselling:  “The lack of definition of the term counselling in adoption legislation and guidance has created confusion over the years, and if this cannot be resolved we recommend that agency workers and their service users should decide together what kind of support might be of use in any given situation.”  Timescales – Applications should be dealt with in consistent, appropriate and realistic timescales. For courts, there should be a national protocol providing a standard procedure; 14 days for acknowledgment, 28 days to locate a file, and full response within 4 months are recommended as appropriate. Good communication is key where there are any delays.  For adoption agencies, there should be timescales compatible with the court process. Whilst consideration needs to be given to resources, it is important for agencies to meet reasonable timescales. The PLWG advises a response within 1 month (in line with SARs)l allowing for a response within 4 months for complex requests.  Priority should be given to pre-1976 adoptions.  Exercise of Discretion – Guidance should be given (or approved) by the President of the Family Division in respect of the exercise of discretion in disclosure applications. This guidance should account for information sharing practices, primary legislation, and the pre and post-commencement regulations.  Review of Post-Commencement Adoptions – There should be a review by the Government as to the provision of information for post-commencement adoptions, ensuring inconsistencies or anomalies are addressed.  Intermediary Services – For pre-commencement adoptions, intermediary services need to be accessible to all adopted adults and their relatives, those adopted pre-1976 should be treated as a priority.  For post-commencement adoptions, there is currently no provision, the PLWG recommends s.98 ACA 2002 is amended to include post-commencement adoptions, noting the evidence supports the need for intermediary services.  The GRO should hold a register of vetoes such that an intermediary who requires information from the GRO can include a request for veto information at the same time, saving time for the birth relatives.  Service User Views – The Government should specifically seek out and address the experiences of adopted adults who request access to their adoption records.  GRO – Whilst beyond the scope of the PLWG report, it is noted that improvement are required within the GRO.  Practice Guidance and Statutory Guidance – New practice guidance for pre and post-commencement adoptions has been produced by IASA, however, the statutory guidance has not been updated in 11 years.  The statutory guidance should include information on how adoption information should be shared between Local Authorities and Regional Adoption Agencies as RAAs were not in existence at the time of the last guidance. There should also be updated statutory guidance on s.62 applications.  Wales – There is currently no statutory guidance on access to information or intermediary services in Wales, there is limited reference within the Codes of Practice, but these should be updated to ensure detailed guidance.  Clear Records – Adoption records should be in plain and appropriate English. There needs to be greater clarity regarding who records are for, notably the Child Permanence Report is a document for the court, the adopters, but also the child themselves – the requirements of such a document should be clear to the author at the outset.  Conclusion  Chapter 2 of the Public Law Working Group’s report emphasises the vital role of accessible adoption records in supporting adopted individuals' sense of identity and connection to their history. The recommendations call for a move from the current fragmented and inconsistent system to one that prioritises clear and consistent access to information. This is essential to ensuring that adopted people can navigate their personal histories with dignity and support.  Central to these recommendations is the need for standardised training, regulation, and guidance for professionals across adoption services. Such consistency will ensure that all involved are equipped to handle adoption records access with the sensitivity and understanding that the lifelong impacts of adoption demand. The recommendations further advocate for centralised registers and protocols that remove barriers and simplify access to vital information, making it a right rather than a challenge.  The present approach to access adoption records reflects the shady legacy of secrecy in adoption, which serves to prevent individuals from fully understanding their origins. Research and experience are clear: this approach does not serve the best interests of those affected by adoption. A modern, reformed system based on these recommendations will allow adopted individuals to engage with their histories, retain connections to birth families where possible, and feel secure in their identities. Ultimately, this reformed framework promises to create a more supportive and respectful adoption system that values individuals' right to their own stories.

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

Parklane Plowden Chambers has appointed Paul Clarke as senior practice director for civil and employment.  Paul's addition completes our new management structure. Paul is pictured above with (L) Senior Practice Director Stephen Render who heads our chancery and commercial and family teams, and (R) Martin Beanland, Head of Service & Finance Director.  Paul joins from Kings Chambers, where he clerked for almost 30 years and was most recently responsible for the employment, personal injury, clinical negligence, sports law and court of protection practices.  As senior practice director, Paul is working with the heads of the civil and employment teams alongside individual members to identify and implement business growth strategies. Paul’s wealth of experience will enhance the set’s clerking team and help them continue to deliver high levels of service and support to clients.  In its 2025 rankings, barristers’ directory, Chambers & Partners, placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1 across its chancery; clinical negligence; employment; and personal injury practice areas. Additionally, the set was ranked Band 2 for inquests and inquiries.  Commenting on his new appointment, Paul said: “I am delighted to be taking on this new role and joining such an established and prestigious set of chambers.  “We have an exceptional and well recognised team of barristers working closely with highly regarded and experienced support staff. This is a potent combination as we look to continue providing high level advice, advocacy and client care.  “The North Eastern circuit has a thriving legal market, and I am excited to play my part in PLP’s ongoing vision for growth.”  Formed in 2007 following the merger of Parklane Chambers in Leeds and Plowden Chambers in Newcastle, Parklane Plowden is home to 118 members.  Welcoming Paul to PLP, head of chambers, James Murphy, said: “Paul has extensive experience as a leading clerk, and we are pleased he is joining us as a senior practice director.  “At PLP, our civil and employment barristers have an established leading reputation and these practice areas represents a core growth opportunity for our set across the North Eastern Circuit.  “Having Paul on board will be instrumental in achieving this. We look forward to leveraging his leadership and management expertise to ensure high quality services are maintained for our clients as we go from strength to strength.”    Chambers & Partners also placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1, the highest ranking a chambers can achieve, across family and children and Band 2 for family: matrimonial finance.  The 2025 edition of legal directory The Legal 500 ranks Parklane Plowden Chambers as a tier one barristers’ set across five practice areas. These include chancery, probate and tax; clinical negligence; employment; family and children law and personal injury.  In addition, The Legal 500 recommends 79 of the set’s barristers across 11 practice areas.

Non-Sexual Transmission of Gonorrhoea in Children Cases

Liverpool City Council v M and F and P [2024] EWFC 318 (B)  Avaia Williams, a first six pupil under the supervision of Sara Anning and Rebecca Musgrove, explores the fact-finding judgment in Liverpool City Council v M and F and P [2024] EWFC 318 (B). This case examines the complex issue of inferring sexual abuse versus nonsexual transmission in cases involving sexually transmitted infections in children.  The case concerned a six-year-old girl, C, diagnosed with gonorrhoea, with no allegations of abuse made by the child. The local authority sought findings against the mother or maternal uncle, asserting the infection must have been sexually transmitted. However, expert evidence highlighted the rare but plausible alternative of nonsexual transmission via fomites (such as shared towels in a humid environment).  The Court, guided by established principles, scrutinised the evidence holistically and found insufficient proof of sexual abuse and concluded that the likely cause was nonsexual transmission due to the uncle’s poor hygiene while contagious.  This judgment reiterates the necessity for thorough, evidence-based evaluations in such cases, avoiding premature conclusions based on the presence of an STI alone. It also highlights the broader implications for culpability and significant harm findings, even where transmission is nonsexual - the infection itself being a cause of harm, rather than the way it has been communicated.  It is understood that the Local Authority is appealing this decision.  The full summary on Family Law Week can be found <a href="https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/liverpool-city-council-v-m-and-f-and-p-2024-ewfc-318-b/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  The full Judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/318.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

REPLAY: Personal Injury Case law update, 19 November 2024

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8dFhe5wqs5k" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>   Parklane Plowden's 'Law with Lunch' webinars bring you the latest law updates.  Barristers and personal injury specialists, Megan Crowther and Adam Chadwick, provide an update of all the key case law from the past six months.  Click the video to watch the webinar recording.

Post Adoption Contact – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

In this first article in a series covering the Public Law Working Group’s recommendations for best practice for adoption, I delve into Chapter 1 of the PLWG report, which addresses a pivotal topic for professionals and families involved in adoption proceedings: post-adoption contact. Recognising the evolving needs of adopted children, birth families, and adoptive families, this chapter emphasises a more dynamic and child-cantered approach to contact that could bring significant changes to both the pre-adoption and post-adoption landscape.  This article will follow the general chronology and sub-headings of the report to ensure consistency, but hopefully will break this down into a more bite size and user-friendly guide to what the PLWG have suggested and, importantly, how this might impact cases going forward for all court users.  Background  Historically, children were placed for adoption with no expectation, or even framework, for contact after they had been adopted – this was believed to be protective at the time. By the time of the Adoption Act 1976, research began to show that such adoption arrangements could lead to serious disadvantages around their sense of identity, though the 1976 Act remained void of any provision to promote such contact.  The landscape for care proceedings took the first step towards promoting contact; section 34 of the Children Act 1989 provides:  “Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority shall (subject to the provisions of this section) […] allow the child reasonable contact with— (a) his parents…”  Whilst not applying to the adoption landscape, it was clear that contact with a birth family was considered, at least broadly, in the best interests of the child. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 brought the adoption system closer in line with the care system, providing that a court must consider the issue of contact before it could make an adoption Order (Adoption and Children Act, s.46(6)), but this did not extend a duty to promote this contact.  The House of Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation reported the following in 2013, at paragraphs 255 and 256:  “Many families participate in ‘letter-box contact’, once or twice a year, which involves exchanging information between the adoptive family and the birth parents. This contact is usually facilitated by the adoption agency to protect the identity and location of the adoptive family. Direct contact with birth parents is rare; it occurs more often with siblings.”  “The evidence we received did not suggest that change was required to the legislative framework.”  In more recent years (at least in the legal sense), The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the 2002 Act, inserting Section 51A which was the first concrete legislative enactment that looked at post-adoption contact, noting:  “(2) When making the adoption order or at any time afterwards, the court may make an order under this section— (a) requiring the person in whose favour the adoption order is or has been made to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order under this section, or for the person named in that order and the child otherwise to have contact with each other, or (b) prohibiting the person named in the order under this section from having contact with the child. (3) The following people may be named in an order under this section— (a) any person who (but for the child's adoption) would be related to the child by blood (including half-blood), marriage or civil partnership;  […]  (4) An application for an order under this section may be made by— (a) a person who has applied for the adoption order or in whose favour the adoption order is or has been made, (b) the child, or (c) any person who has obtained the court's leave to make the application. (5) In deciding whether to grant leave under subsection (4)(c), the court must consider (a) any risk there might be of the proposed application disrupting the child's life to such an extent that he or she would be harmed by it (within the meaning of the 1989 Act), (b) the applicant's connection with the child, an (c) any representations made to the court by— (i) the child, or (ii) a person who has applied for the adoption order or in whose favour the adoption order is or has been made.”  However, as the report notes:  “…there is little reported case-law to suggest that these provisions are being actively used (see appendix A: table of post-adoption case-law, prepared by Sharon Segal) and anecdotal experience suggests that these provisions are rarely employed. Furthermore, indirect and letterbox contact remains the predominant contact provision post adoption in England and Wales.”  It is only in the past few years that post adoption contact has been taken seriously. In 2022, the House of Lords Children and Families Act 2014 Committee reported: “The failure to modernise contact threatens to undermine the adoption system.” Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division, in a series of lectures, has further highlighted the need for greater understanding of the benefits of post adoption contact; speaking on Re B (A Child) (Post Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29, the President noted that ‘the imposition on prospective adopters of orders for contact with which they were not in agreement is extremely, and remains, unusual.’ Essentially opining that greater flexibility in post-adoption contact must be on a case-by-case basis.  In a more recent lecture (the POTATO Conference lecture), the President reflected upon research into the attitudes of those who have been adopted, the report notes that:  “The message from those lectures was that the court and the Family Judiciary have an important part to play in the cultural shift towards greater openess for adopted people and their families. Orders for contact made at the time of the placement order under s26 ACA 2002 can set the template for contact going forward, and this will be an Important 'known known' about the child to be taken on board by any potential adopters with whom placement may be considered.”  Research  The research of Elsbeth Neil and Julie Selwyn played an invaluable backdrop to the reports research. The PLWG noted that understanding the approach in Northern Ireland, where post-adoption contact plans are usually prepared with provisions for direct contact.  The Working Group reported that there were several research issues influential to the thinking of the report:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Transparency and openness around the circumstances of the adoptee’s birth family is beneficial to the child.</li>  <li>The purpose of post-adoption contact is to support the child to understand their experience and develop their sense of identity.</li>  <li>Separating siblings can lead to an enduring sense of loss.</li>  <li> Face-to-face contact helps children develop their identity and to accept the reasons behind their adoption.</li>  <li>Ensuring contact is safe is vital for any positive outcomes.</li>  <li>Communication with and understanding from the parties involved in contact is important to its success.</li>  <li>Despite research indicating the benefits, the overwhelming majority of cases remain letterbox only. Where direct contact does occur, this is often without formal agreement.</li>  <li>A high degree of letterbox contact arrangements stall due to the failure of one or both parties to maintain the arrangement, leaving many children without effective contact.</li>  <li>The Northern Ireland experience suggests a shift in the mindset of adoption professionals and guidance from the judiciary can bring about a change in post-adoption contact without the need for primary legislation.</li> </ol>  Given the value of the research in this area, the Working Group considered how widely available this was for those working in the field, noting that this requires private study that is not always possible.  “Disseminating the results of the extensive research in this area seemed to us an important first step, so that all approach the concept of post adoption with a clear and realistic outlook.”  The positions of those involved in adoption need to be understood and addressed:  “…birth parents may find it hard to engage in conversations around post-adoption contact at a time when they may be contesting proceedings and seeking the return of their child. Support counselling and guidance for them needs to be carefully thought out and should be available not just before and during proceedings but after the decision is made, and once they have had time to process their situation.”  “In the same way, the views of adopters around post-adoption contact may change over time. Contact plans are almost always voluntary and a good understanding of why such contact is necessary better enables them to commit to the plan. An adopter’s commitment to post-adoption contact may be very high immediately after training but may fluctuate for any number of reasons. Access to training and education for them should be available at all stages of the process including after the order is made.”  The PLWG endorses the comments made in the House of Lords Committee report, noting that there is a need for a meaningful but safe system allowing for support for lifelong contact with members of the birth families, where this is safe. It is clear that, alongside this, social workers, children’s guardians, and judges need to change their thinking about post-adoption contact. A key point emphasised by the report is that any change in approach must be coordinated will all parties working on the same page as “[A]nything less is unlikely to bring about the wholesale change in the manner in which post adoption contact is managed.”  Finally, the Working Group considered digital innovations being piloted in post-adoption contact, namely ‘Letterswap’ and ‘ARCBOX’ which are platforms being utilise to support electronic exchange between adoptive and birth families.  General Recommendations  The PLWG makes six broad general recommendations to post-adoption contact.  Change the approach to face-to-face contact – Greater consideration needs to be given as to whether there should be face-to-face contact between the child and their birth family. Whilst this won’t be safe in all cases, it is outdated for this to be the extremely rare exception.  Consistent training for prospective adopters – Regardless of who delivers training, there needs to be a consistent message that places lifelong needs of adopted children at its core, notably in relation to their sense of identity and the importance of communication and birth family contact in order to meet those needs. Training should include the available research and voices of those impacted by adoption.  Ongoing training for adoption practitioners – Social workers, lawyers and judges should undergo regular training which is underscored by the research outcomes of post-adoption contact. This training should also include the voices of those impacted by adoption.  Signpost birth parents to independent support ASAP – Birth parents should be provided guidance, counselling and support. The requirement under ss. 3-4 ACA 2002 for support should be promoted. Birth parents should be encouraged to use a support worker and Adoption agencies should be responsible for signposting parents to support. Cafcass or the court should ensure this service is being offered and the care plan should prompt the social worker to ensure that it has been done.  Ongoing support for birth parents – Regional adoption agencies should offer or commission ongoing support. There should be a strong awareness among the agencies staff, and a clear presence on their website and printed materials, of how to access this support. Should these services not be taken up, independent advice and information services may be a way to enable reconsideration. Should these services still not have been taken up one year after the Orders are made, adoption agencies should again approach birth parents.  Establish best practice guidance – Similar to the Welsh system, there should be a best practice guidance dealing with the approach of practitioners to post-adoption contact and encompassing the recommendations of the report.  The Working Group’s general recommendations advocate for a structured, supportive, and importantly a research-informed framework to post-adoption contact. By standardising training, enhancing support for birth families, and guiding practitioners via a consistent best practice approach, a clear and child-centred approach to adoption will evolve that prioritises the identity of adopted children.  Recommendations Pre-Proceedings  In addition to the general recommendations with respect to post-adoption contact, the PLWG has identified areas for improvement at the pre-proceedings stage.  Early identification of important relationships – The approach to identifying alternative carers should be expanded to consider the relationships which are or may be important to the child. This early understanding of the child’s network will provide a map of those who might be considered for direct post-adoption contact. Consideration will need to be given to those who are not immediate family, especially for very young children whose future network is not clear.  Creation of an important relationships map alongside Genograms – This map of relationships will include those who are already significant, but also those who can provide news about such significant individuals, can provide reassurance to the child, and can facilitate positive contact. Non-familial relationships should also be considered such as godparents and previous foster carers.  Establish guidance as to the roles of social workers – Early liaison between child protection social workers and adoption social workers at the point adoption is within contemplation would be helpful. Early involvement ensures the adoption social worker has a clear understanding of the child’s networks. This also ensures that an adoption professional is involved to ensure specialist knowledge on contact and working with birth families is available to carefully consider any plan should an Order be made. This early liaison should not be any indication that a Court has made any decision on adoption.  For pre-proceedings, the PLWG’s emphasis on mapping relationships and supporting collaboration between social work professionals will ensure that those relationships important to the child and preserved. The early identification of these relationships provides a solid foundation for meaningful contact arrangements that will ensure the child’s longer-term emotional needs are met.  Recommendations During Proceedings  Further, the report recommends that the full range of contact options should be actively considered by both professionals and the court during proceedings; the assumption that contact will automatically be letterbox should be removed. The Working Group recognises that this will impact differently on the various professionals involved.  For social workers, this will require an investigation of those who may positively contribute to post-adoption contact, the report cites:  “The personal circumstances, wishes, and resources of birth family (and foster family) members need to be explored. Attention should be paid to considering who in the child’s existing network has something to offer in terms of providing background information or ongoing news of how significant people are doing. Who can reassure the child that they are cared about and remembered? Which individuals are most able to support the child as a member of their adoptive family? What help might birth parents need to manage adoption-related loss, anger, and shame so they can focus on their child’s needs.”  This will also require social workers to:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Assess the ability of those identified to maintain post-adoption contact within the final care plan.</li>  <li>Specifically address within the Final SWET the balance between the welfare interests of the child and the safeguarding issues with respect to post-adoption contact. This should specifically evidence a range of options and individuals have been considered, with reasoning why they are or are not suitable.</li>  <li>Specifically address within the Final SWET whether reconsideration of direct post-adoption contact should take place at a later stage.</li>  <li>Consideration must be given within any recommendation as to the practical arrangements (with face-to-face contact, this will include duration, frequency, and location). The Working Group notes the research heavily indicates the adoptive parents should be involved in such contact in most cases. The report specifically notes that an acceptance by the birth family that adoption was the right decision is not always necessary to ensure post-adoption contact is positive, but the birth family will need to understand their role has change. At the later stages, this could be via a form of working together agreement.</li>  <li>Where letterbox contact remains the recommendation, digital options should be explored. By the time the adoption order is considered, there should be a clear plan in mind that has been approved by all parties involved, including the prospective adopters.</li>  <li>Post-adoption contact should be emphasised in the final care plan, including identifying support that may be necessary to the child, adopters and birth family.</li>  <li>Specific consideration should be given to sibling contact, with targeted work undertaken. This must be done within proceedings to ensure no gap in contact.</li>  <li>A draft contact support plan should be available for the Court to consider prior to the making of a Placement Order. A full version should form part of the adoption support plan.</li>  <li>Social workers should agree who completes the life story, this should be clear by the time a Placement Order is made.</li> </ul>  For children’s guardians, this will require that they address, within the final analysis, whether post-adoption contact has been considered broad enough. This should also include their own analysis on the welfare benefits of any contact recommendations. The report recommends the standard template is amended to include a section looking at these specific issues.  The IRO may have a further compliance role at the stage of the adoption order given, in most cases, the children’s guardian will no longer be involved at this stage.  For the courts, this will require specific consideration on the use of s.26 ACA 2002 and how it can be used to set out the contact needs of the child such that they extend beyond the point of the placement order. This would especially be so where the ending of contact after placement order would be detrimental to the child. Putting these orders in place will set the tone for what should happen after the adoption and once the life of the s.26 order comes to an end, the report cites:  “Such orders may influence the search for adopters and focus the minds of professionals, prospective adopters and birth relatives on establishing a working contact plan. This may be a useful tool where children are considered to have a compelling need for ongoing contact, helping to avoid these needs being side-lined in order to make him or her more ‘adoptable’, an outcome that is incompatible with the notion of adoption as a service for children.”  The courts will also need to consider, where applicable, the use of s.51A ACA 2002, which contemplates the making of a contact order at that moment or any time post-adoption. This provision could be used to facilitate a review of contact by the court, as the President said in the NAGALRO lecture ‘In the right case, there may well be justification in this power being used for the issue of contact to be set down for review, may be in a year or more after adoption to see if, in some way, provision of contact may provide the adopted person, the soon to be adult, with some bridge back  to her roots.’ The Working Group does however recognise imposing an order on unwilling adopters is serious, and that case law has set out the limits where this is appropriate (Re B (A Child) (Post-Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29). This highlights the need for the adopters to be fully involved in decisions about contact, however, the PLWG notes that:  “If the other recommendations in this report are accepted, we hope that with greater support and training for all concerned, decisions about contact are overwhelmingly likely to be made by consent.”  The report calls for a clear and stark shift away from letterbox only contact and towards consideration of a broader range of options. By integrating the approach by those professionals involved and fostering consideration for post-adoption contact at all stages, the child’s unique welfare needs will be considered throughout the process.  Additional Recommendations  Finally, the report sets out 14 miscellaneous, additional, overriding and other recommendations aimed at supporting post-adoption contact:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Adoptive parents should write a ‘settling-in letter’ to the birth family.</li>  <li>A meeting between the adoptive and birth family should be considered in every case.</li>  <li>‘Later in life’ letters from the birth family should be considered and timetabled.</li>  <li>Whilst Regulations require life story books to be available 10 days after an adoption order, these should be available by the time of the order and should include those people identified as important to the child.</li>  <li>Examples of post-adoption agreements and contact plans should be circulated nationally and be available to all adoption agencies as a flexible pro forma.</li>  <li>Communication between the birth parents and adoption social worker should continue to allow reassessment of post-adoption contact, noting that “the capacity of adults to consider and enact contact plans may be much higher once the ‘the dust has settled’. An expectation of the need for flexibility and to keep arrangements under review should be established from the start.” Ongoing support should be provided to ensure these arrangements remain in place and a contact support plan being available at the placement order stage would benefit in this area.</li>  <li>Documents shared with adopters about the birth family must be balanced. The adoptive family needs to know the positives as well as the negatives.</li>  <li>The adoption social worker should offer periodic reviews of the contact plan. These would not be formal or compulsory, but flexible ‘check ins’ should take place to ensure the child’s needs are met.</li>  <li>Digital platforms should be considered to enable indirect contact.</li>  <li>Direct contact should be expected to continue in Early Permanence Placements (EPP) where this has gone well.</li>  <li>Social workers should manage and support direct contact, including preparation and de-briefing. The social workers will need to be attuned to a trauma sensitive practice in this area.</li>  <li>Adoptive and birth families should have a named worker to approach regarding letter box contact.</li>  <li>Judgments where contact is a feature should be published in full.</li>  <li>All siblings not placed together should receive the information in the ‘Charter for Siblings’</li> </ul>  These additional recommendations go to the importance of the need for flexibility to facilitate post-adoption contact. Even where letterbox contact is still the recommended course, having a clear path in mind for this and the reviews that will take place, are liable to ensure that birth families are able to effectively communicate and children retain the best chance of developing their identity safely.  Conclusion  Chapter 1 of the Public Law Working Group’s report on best practice in adoption centres on the need for post-adoption contact and how this can be better facilitated. The recommendations shift the perspective from contact being the extremely rare exception, to being the standard consideration in most cases. The proposed reforms to best practice encourage all involved to focus on the identity and emotional needs of the children involved by making sure contact arrangements are flexible and responsive to each unique child and their unique needs.  Consistent training, regulation, and best practice guidance for adoption professionals will ensure that all those working in this field are working with the same research driven goals in mind, with understanding of the long-term benefits being at the core of all decisions. But this will also go to quickly shifting the perspectives across the board.  The current approach to adoption is still one rooted in archaic and outdated perspectives, with birth families being written off as to any positive impact for the child, but the research shows us that this is not right. That it is in the best interests of the children to maintain strong and identifiable roots to their birth family.  Adoption systems that are structured around these recommendations are likely to foster more positive and supportive outcomes for children, where the preservation of meaningful relationships is prioritised. As an end goal, these recommendations could lead to a system that secures the child’s future by respecting their history, sense of identity, and their longer-term life needs.

Sharon Robson

It is with great sadness that Parklane Plowden Chambers share the news that our former Senior Practice Director and great friend Sharon Robson died at home on Sunday morning, surrounded by her beloved family.  Sharon was an inspirational woman and outstanding barristers’ clerk, who championed and supported members of chambers and staff alike. She was a key member of our senior clerking team, playing a crucial role in the careers of many current and former members, several of whom went on to judicial appointments, with her characteristic calmness, efficiency, and kindness. She was just as important in the mentoring and professional development of junior members of the clerking team, with a talent for spotting and nurturing those with potential. She was highly regarded by clients: earlier this year, she was described in a legal directory as “one of the best clerks I have dealt with in my career”.  Perhaps most importantly, she was our friend.  Sharon retired from Chambers just one month ago, after the treatment that she had been undergoing for cancer came to an end. She dealt with her illness with immense bravery and fortitude. We will miss her greatly. Our thoughts are with her husband Glen, children Holly and Cameron, and mam Gerry. Further details of Sharon’s trail-blazing career can be found: <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/sharon-robson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Latest News

Event

14 May 2025

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Lies in Family Law Proceedings &#8211; Clarification from the Court of Appeal

Parklane Plowden named Barristers’ Chambers of the Year at Personal Injury Awards 2024

Leila Benyounes to speak at the British Orthopaedic Trainees Association Congress

He Said, She Said: Witness Credibility in Deakin-Stephenson v Behar &amp; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)

Adoption Records &#8211; PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

Non-Sexual Transmission of Gonorrhoea in Children Cases

REPLAY: Personal Injury Case law update, 19 November 2024

Post Adoption Contact &#8211; PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Sharon Robson

Latest News

26th June 2025 | PLP Public Law Seminar in Association with DNA Legal

Remediation Contribution Orders Under the Building Safety Act 2022 – Part One

Leila Benyounes Acts for Family in Tragic Baby Death Inquest

15th July 2025 | PLP Employment Grandstand Seminar

Lies in Family Law Proceedings – Clarification from the Court of Appeal

He Said, She Said: Witness Credibility in Deakin-Stephenson v Behar & Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)

Adoption Records – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide

Post Adoption Contact – PLWG Best Practice: A Guide