KEY POINTS:
In another chapter related to the Jayden Headley kidnapping saga, a High Court finding released this afternoon has found that historical Family Court rulings can be published for public consumption "in appropriate cases."
However, Justice Heath's ruling has found that Principle Family Court Judge Peter Boshier made an error in law when he released findings detailing the background of the Skelton versus Jones custody dispute.
This is because Judge Boshier failed to consult counsel for all parties involved, including Tracey Gunn, lawyer for six-year-old boy Jayden Headley.
There was a "clear obligation" to do so, Justice Heath said.
The fact some of the historical judgements contained "strong language" from Family Court judges about the credibility and reliability of Kay Skelton and Dick Headley cast doubts over their opportunity to fair trials in the future.
"Placement in to the public domain of adverse credibility findings made by a judicial officer about a person likely to face trial on a charge arising out of events that were related to the Family Court proceeding was, at the very least, likely to raise fair trial concerns that could not be addressed without giving interested parties an opportunity to be heard," the judgement said.
On releasing the Family Court history of the custody dispute, Judge Boshier had justified his decision by outlining six factors.
He reasoned that because the boy had been returned after the kidnapping ordeal, no harm was likely to occur to him if the judgements were released in full.
Further, the Judge reasoned that it was in Jayden's interests that an accurate and transparent record of the proceedings be available for public consumption.
Justice Heath said he "could not so readily conclude" that either was the case.
He did agree however that Ms Skelton and other members of her family were continuing to present only their side of the dispute to the media, and that public confidence in the Family Court was a relevant factor.
Justice Heath took exception to the Family Court's assessment that rights of a fair trial would not be compromised by the release of the custody dispute's history.
Submissions should have been called for in the interests of natural justice.
"A lengthy hearing was not required. The issues were relatively narrow. There was no urgency that required an order being made without notice."
