The District Court has asked the parties to identify questions for a consultative case stated to the High Court on whether an authorised researcher may access professional reports filed in child-care proceedings.
The case concerns Dr CC, founder of the Child Care Law Reporting Project, who applied under section 29(5) of the Child Care Act 1991 for access to relevant court documents. The project reports on child-care cases while protecting the anonymity of children and families, and also analyses data from proceedings.
Dr CC sought access to originating documents, pleadings and other documents lodged in the proceedings, and court orders. Her submissions argued that “other documents” included social work, Guardian ad Litem and other professional reports filed for the case. The Guardian ad Litem’s counsel urged caution, arguing that “court documents” meant official court documents rather than every document produced or lodged during proceedings. The Child and Family Agency and the respondent parents took neutral positions by the time of the application.
Judge Rosemary Horgan said the Act gives an authorised researcher a right to seek access to relevant court documents, subject to court directions, but does not define that phrase. She found that the wording and legislative context did not establish a statutory right to seek social work, Guardian ad Litem or other professional reports in child-care proceedings. She said Dr CC had a prima facie right to seek access to documents such as the application, statutory declarations of service and grounding affidavits.
The judge distinguished the child-care provisions from a separate family-law regime, which expressly defines “relevant documents” to include pleadings, other documents lodged with the court and orders. She also noted that courts have discretion in some circumstances to permit access to in-camera documents, with redactions or other terms to protect affected people.
The judgment did not decide the questions referred to the High Court. Instead, the judge invited the parties to propose questions for the consultative case stated, proceeding on the basis of her findings and view of the statutory wording. Among the issues raised were whether “relevant court documents” are limited to documents instituting proceedings; what balancing factors should apply to access requests; whether report authors should receive notice; and whether use of material not read into the hearing record could breach the Act.