Civil evidence – Family law – Maintenance

Child Support Agency v Forrest: DC (Lord Justice Elias, Mr Justice Keith): 14 May 2010

The appellant Department for Work and Pensions appealed by way of case stated against a decision of a magistrates’ court to acquit the respondent (F) following his failure to comply with a request for information under section 14 of the Child Support Act 1991.

The department had requested information from F pursuant to section 14(a) of the act. F did not provide it. He believed that its disclosure would lead to consequences for his children and his wife (W) in relation to her benefit claims which could result in criminal prosecution. The magistrates concluded that the concept of ‘reasonable excuse’ contemplated by the legislation was capable of embracing the rule against self-incrimination and protecting others from criminal charges. The question for the court was whether those defences were, in principle, reasonable excuses.

Held: (1) Following rules of ordinary construction, it was clear that the defence against self-incrimination was expressly contemplated by section 15(7) of the act. In those circumstances, it could be inferred that parliament had not intended the defence to be available under section 14. (2) As a matter of authority, the magistrates were wrong. Where the fairness of a criminal trial was concerned, adducing potentially incriminating answers to requests for evidence might be justified, although it was not justified in respect of extra-judicial requests if they invited an admission of wrongdoing, R v Hertfordshire CC Ex p Green Environmental Industries Ltd (2000) 2 AC 412 HL applied. (3) However, powerful public policy arguments were also engaged. It was in the public interest to ensure fathers paid appropriate maintenance to their spouses or partners in respect of their children.

Appeal allowed.

Q Hunt (instructed by the Department for Work and Pensions) for the appellant; H Southey QC (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the respondent.