Can you decide who is to be your unpaid advocate? Eleanor Battie

24 May 2013 by

mckenzie-friend11RE F (CHILDREN) 14 May 2013, Court of Appeal – extempore so currently only available as a Lawtel summary (£)

A topical case, this, given legal aid cutbacks. It concerns the ability of unrepresented litigants to choose those to help them out as advocates in court. Not an unconstrained right, as this case demonstrates. The High Court ruled that a judge had been entitled to refuse an application for a particular person to act as a McKenzie friend despite that individual not being present in court at the time of the application. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 

This application for permission to appeal resulted from the refusal by a family judge to permit a person to act as a McKenzie friend within care proceedings.

The applicant’s two children had been taken into care and findings had been made that one of them had suffered a non-accidental injury inflicted by the applicant. Thereafter, a final care order was made and the Local Authority applied for adoption and to terminate contact. The applicant then sought publicity for her case, which was prohibited by the court.

The applicant applied for permission to appeal against the care order and was assisted in this application by her McKenzie friend as, by then, she was not entitled to public funding and had no legal representation.

Within the appeal, the Applicant produced a statement supported by a number of documents which raised concerns with the Local Authority regarding the McKenzie friend acting for the applicant. They opposed the application for her to act as McKenzie friend.

The judge refused the application for the McKenzie friend to assist in court, after which the Applicant refused to take part in the proceedings on the basis that her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6 had been infringed.

The Judge held that there was a presumption in favour of allowing a litigant in person to have the benefit of the assistance of a Mackenzie friend, O (Children) (Hearing in Private: Assistance), Re [2005] EWCA Civ 759, [2006] Fam. 1 considered. The relevant Practice Guidance also assumed that the proposed McKenzie friend would be in court on the application for permission to act. However, the judge’s decision in this case could not be faulted. He had seen the statement produced by the McKenzie friend. It was a striking document. It made clear that the proposed McKenzie friend:

  1. Had embarked on a campaign concerning the family justice system and the conduct of the local authority;
  2. That she did not respect the confidentiality of the family justice system in other cases and in the instant case, and
  3. That she did not understand the role of a McKenzie friend, which was to assist with presentation of the case in court in a neutral manner.

It was clear that the McKenzie friend had a personal interest in the instant case and expected to give evidence to make good her contentions. Her ability to be a McKenzie friend had been compromised by the statement. She claimed that she had the permission of those involved to disclose details of other cases, but the confidentiality of family proceedings was a matter for the court. The applicant was entitled to a McKenzie friend, but her current choice was not suitable for that role. The presence of the McKenzie friend in court would not have changed the Judge’s view. He acted within the ambit of his discretion on the basis that the McKenzie friend might not respect the confidentiality of the proceedings.


As the Legal Aid Agency continue to tighten the purse strings and litigants are forced to apply to the courts without the assistance of legal representation, McKenzie friends are likely to become an increasingly present feature of the family courts. Although there is a presumption of allowing a litigant to be assisted by a McKenzie friend and it is to be expected that they would be present at the time the application is made, judges retain significant discretion to consider the appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed McKenzie friend.

Eleanor Battie is a barrister in Crown Office Row Chambers Brighton

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

1 comment;

  1. In my view the Judge did not act with discretion appropriate to the case, where the appeal courts have reasoned: ” If there were evidence that the presence of a McKenzie friend was sought for an improper purpose, that could justify refusal of permission. There does not seem to have been any such evidence in this case, — as the MKF may have embarked on campaigns and if evidence was admissible where so ever it had been obtained provided it was relevant and the law, PR and CPR would apply and discretion is not relevant. Also where the appeal court has stated; “In general the fact that a proposed McKenzie friend belongs to an organisation which promotes a particular cause or interest is no reason for not allowing him to undertake the role. Members of Families Need Fathers – an organisation whose cause is no secret – regularly act as McKenzie friends.” I find it hard to reconcile the judicial reasons with reasons stated in this comment taken from; Re [2005] EWCA Civ 759, [2006] Fam. If there is any weakness in the reasons given by a judge in making decisions then the reasoning is invalid and the decision should not have been made. As Always I welcome coment or feedback

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: