KEY POINTS:
Family Court lawyers are backing a controversial decision to release court judgments on the Jayden Headley case, even though the lawyer for Jayden's mother says the decision means she can no longer get a fair trial.
Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier confirmed yesterday that his decision to publish five court judgments in the case dating back to September 2005 was unprecedented.
Auckland barrister Barry Hart, acting for Jayden's mother Kay Skelton, said media coverage of the judgments yesterday was "completely unbalanced" and meant Ms Skelton could not ever get a fair trial on the criminal charges she faces.
He said he would apply to have the charges against Ms Skelton dismissed because any jury would be prejudiced against her.
He said he would also seek a High Court injunction today to stop the Family Court from issuing any more material from the case and to "restrain anyone from disseminating any more material of this nature".
"Given the history of appearing in the Family Court on Tuesday and seeking an order of non-publication relating to anything that may affect the forthcoming criminal proceedings, and obtaining an order, I'm absolutely horrified to think that the Family Court released these early decisions," he said.
But the convenor of the Auckland District Law Society's family law committee, Vanessa Vette, said Judge Boshier made the right call to release the decisions because of the amount of selective information already in the public domain since Ms Skelton's father Dick Headley went into hiding with 6-year-old Jayden five months ago.
"There has been so much information in the media about this case over the last five months, much of it on the mother's side," she said.
"From my perspective, reading these judgments in full does give you a more balanced view of the case when you know the long background. There have been proceedings since the little boy was about 8 months old."
Ms Vette said the Family Court was obliged to focus on what was in the best interests of the child, and in this case there had already been such intense media coverage that publication of the full judgments would not do any further damage to Jayden.
She noted that Hamilton Family Court Judge Rosemary Riddell had awarded only interim care of Jayden to his father, Chris Jones, so Ms Skelton still had an opportunity to challenge that decision.
Wellington media law lecturer Steven Price said the Court of Appeal ruled in the 1995 case of John Gillies that "in the ordinary course of things jurors are likely to forget stuff published within six to eight months".
Judge Boshier himself said he was not aware of any precedent for release of Family Court judgments without deleting identifying details since the Care of Children Act allowed journalists into the court in 2005. Although the media can now report Family Court cases, they cannot normally include any details that would identify the parties.
"However, the act provides a general discretion for publication, including identifying information," Judge Boshier said.
"Where the public interest clearly requires such details to be published, particularly in cases where parties have already identified themselves and their children, it is likely that unanonymised judgments will be made available.
"As I have said previously, where a case is put into the public domain, and the process of the Family Court is under scrutiny, I will always look at making available judgments so as to ensure that the facts are before the public."
