In camera rule amd documents?

Clauric

Going to post this thread here, but it covers a number of areas.

I have a daughter from a previous relationship. I pay maintenance for her, in the amount of X per week. The relationship with her mother is exceptionally fraught, and has resulted in a number of family court appearances in order to resolve the outstanding issues, including maintenance.

A few days ago, the Department of Social Protection (DSP) contacted me regarding a claim I made in December 2011. They are currently reviewing the claim and requested a number of documents. Most of the these documents are standard documents, such as bank statements, records of employment applications, etc.

However, one of the documents that they requested seems odd. The DSP inspector requested that I provide copies of all the court orders, going back over 5+ years, relating to the maintenance.

I have two issues with this. The orders contain information and details that deal with other issues than just the maintenance. These include access, education, health, etc.

The second issue is with the in-camera rule. As far as I am aware, any discussions, arguments and orders made under any family law ruling are subject to the in-camera rule. As such, it seems to me that the DSP inspector is overreaching in their requests. (They have said that unless I provide the information, they will recommend that my claim be denied, and that all the monies they have given me be recouped!).

I am planning on NOT supplying the information requested, due to the reasons outlined. However, I am wondering do I have a leg to stand on, in my refusal to hand over the documents. I am not looking for legal advice, but opinion, and if possible, case law (if it is admissable).

Cody Pomeray

We cannot give legal advice.

There is a general principle that it is a contempt of court for any person to disseminate information derived from proceedings held in camera without the permission of the court.
[(Eastern Health Board v Fitness to Practice Committee of the Medical Council [1998] 3 IR 399.)]

Although the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 relaxed the rules on in camera proceedings, I am not aware of any general exemptions that apply to the Department of Social Protection. I may be wrong.

And while it is not unusual for banks (for example) to be on notice to family law proceedings, and while this does not extinguish the in camera nature of those proceedings, that is subject to the permission of the court. As such, any subsequent disclosure of documents seems to be a matter for the court.

I suggest that anybody who is concerned about putting themselves in contempt of court seek legal advice, and communicate their concerns with the person requesting the information, specifically where that request is of a very general nature.

Clauric

Thanks for the info, I'll read the case.

Now anybody got any opinion as to whether I should provide the information.

Cody Pomeray

When reading Eastern Health Board v. Medical Council, which provides a good run down on the principles of disclosing in camera material, just bear the (more recent) S. 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 in mind.

Without looking at the latter it in more detail, I don't know the extent to which broad swathes of potentially sensitive information can be disclosed, which may not be relevant to any investigation such as you have described.

Again, I would suggest legal advice, and I think it would be irresponsible of anyone to advise you what to do. However, it may be that if you communicate your unease with the inspector, it will be sufficient for him or her to appreciate the seriousness of what they are requesting, and perhaps narrow their request accordingly.

Pat Mustard

Clauric wrote: »

The second issue is with the in-camera rule. As far as I am aware, any discussions, arguments and orders made under any family law ruling are subject to the in-camera rule. As such, it seems to me that the DSP inspector is overreaching in their requests.

You certainly know your stuff.

Clauric wrote: »

I am planning on NOT supplying the information requested, due to the reasons outlined. However, I am wondering do I have a leg to stand on, in my refusal to hand over the documents. I am not looking for legal advice, but opinion, and if possible, case law (if it is admissable).

I see your point, and it would be difficult to contradict your point of law.

Clauric wrote: »

(They have said that unless I provide the information, they will recommend that my claim be denied, and that all the monies they have given me be recouped!).

As you know yourself, this is a problem.

At risk of pointing out the obvious here, it strikes me that you plan to contest the DSP's request for documents on the basis of the in camera rule. It could be that this strategy may not work for you.

You should bear in mind that the in camera rule is a bar on releasing certain documents (etc.) without court permission. Although we can't give legal advice here, this may be something that you may wish to look into further.

Also, court offices are sometimes able to give excerpts from family law orders, showing the details pertinent to a particular situation, but withholding other irrelevant yet confidential details.

You may be entitled to get legal advice from a Law Centre, if you contact the Legal Aid Board.