In brief: A Family Court judge in Jersey has flagged significant gaps in the island’s legal framework for domestic abuse cases, noting the absence of dedicated legislation and no system for appointing qualified legal representatives to protect alleged victims during cross-examination. The observations arose from a case in which a father was barred from making further applications relating to his son for six years.
What the judgment revealed
Family Judge Samantha McFadzean has drawn attention to a notable shortcoming in Jersey’s legal infrastructure: unlike England and Wales, the island has no legislation or Family Division practice direction setting out how judges should approach, define and deal with allegations of domestic abuse in the Family Court.
The Jersey Evening Post reports that the Royal Court was instead obliged to look across the water, considering guidance used by the Family Court in England and Wales, known as Practice Direction 12J, when determining the case before it. In other words, Jersey’s judges are borrowing the rulebook from a neighbouring jurisdiction because the island has not yet written its own.
The judgment also highlighted a second, arguably more pressing gap: Jersey has no system for appointing qualified legal representatives, known as QLRs, to question alleged victims on behalf of alleged abusers who are representing themselves. In England and Wales, such a mechanism exists precisely to spare alleged victims the ordeal of being directly cross-examined by the very person they accuse of abuse. Judge McFadzean stated plainly that there is “no law or practice in place in Jersey” enabling such representatives to be appointed.
The case itself
The gaps in the framework were thrown into sharp relief by the particulars of the case. It concerned the parents of a three-year-old boy. The mother attended the final hearing by video link while the father, who represented himself, attended in person, a situation that illustrates precisely why the absence of a QLR system matters in practice.
Following a fact-finding hearing, the court concluded that the father had exhibited behaviour intended to coercively control, or which had the effect of controlling, the mother during and after their relationship. Judge McFadzean found that he had behaved in an “intimidating, threatening and abusive manner” towards the mother and her family, and had harassed and behaved threateningly towards professionals and others involved in caring for the child. He had also repeatedly threatened to remove the boy from his mother or other carers.
The court rejected the father’s allegations that the mother had alienated their son from him. While Judge McFadzean accepted that the father loved his son and would not physically harm him, she expressed concern about the potential emotional impact of his behaviour on the child, noting that his aggression and hostility could set a “dangerous example”.
The child will live with his mother. The father will be permitted supervised contact for up to seven hours on no more than one day every other weekend. He was also barred from making further applications relating to his son for six years, and will only be able to seek permission to bring an application during that period if he agrees to undergo a psychological assessment. The court was clear that until he addresses his behaviour, there will be no consideration of additional or overnight contact.
An order preventing the father from removing or attempting to remove the child from his mother or an authorised carer was extended. The mother was additionally granted permission to obtain a foreign passport for the child without the father’s agreement, with the judge describing his position on the matter as “unnecessarily obstructive and not child-focused”.
The legislative gap: what it means for Jersey
The practical consequences of Jersey’s legislative lag are not trivial. In cases where an alleged abuser represents themselves, the absence of a QLR system means an alleged victim may face direct questioning from their accuser in open court, a situation that campaigners and legal professionals in England and Wales fought hard to address. Jersey has not yet legislated to close that door.
The reliance on English practice directions as informal guidance, rather than on Jersey’s own codified rules, also creates uncertainty. Guidance borrowed from another jurisdiction carries no formal legal weight in Jersey and may not account for the specific characteristics of the island’s court system. A clear domestic framework would give judges, practitioners and, crucially, victims and families a reliable and consistent set of rules to work with.
Source: Jersey Evening Post
