Until April 2024, I took general court security and special measures for granted. As a practitioner frequently appearing in the Family Court in domestic abuse-related matters, I would arrive at court and only take notice of the security measures for the time it took to have my Bar Council pass scanned and be ushered through, before I rushed to hunt down a conference room that had hopefully been set aside for my client in accordance with special measures. My blasé attitude came abruptly to an end when I was assaulted last year at court by my opponent, a litigant in person.
This was a case where my client had asked for special measures, having previously been assaulted by her ex-husband (for which he had been convicted). On this day – as is often the case – the court did not have sufficient capacity to cater for the number of cases in the list that required separated conference rooms. Conference rooms – thin on the ground at the best of times – were therefore incredibly limited. I thought I was lucky therefore to secure a conference room for my client at all. However, it quickly emerged that this room did not provide sufficient protection. The location of the room was such that my client had to walk past her ex-husband to get to and from the toilet facilities, or indeed the entrance / exit. Every time she did so (accompanied by either myself or my solicitor), the litigant in person would make comments loud enough for her to hear, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate her. I raised repeated concerns throughout the day to court staff regarding this behaviour, however, there was no other place for the court staff to move him to, nor were there sufficient security guards on duty to cover both the court entrance as well as the waiting area. Ultimately, his behaviour escalated to the point where, after concluding my cross-examination of him for the day and after we had left the courtroom, he shoved me, hard, from behind.
Somewhat ironically, on the morning of the assault, the Central Family Court had announced a pilot scheme whereby judges would be robed in the CFC. This robing scheme was introduced with a view to assessing whether greater formality would assist in reducing poor behaviour: the supporting announcement referenced ‘concern about incidents of violent and threatening behaviour experienced by judges and court users’[1] . Although not explicitly referenced, this would appear to relate in part to the violent attack in November 2023 against Judge Perusko in Milton Keynes Family Court. As many readers will remember, Judge Perusko was repeatedly punched in the head and had a radiator thrown at him by a litigant in person, who appeared before him in a family case. Judge Perusko required hospital treatment after the attack[2].
The robing scheme was introduced for an initial period of 3 months. To my mind, the scheme was an admirable attempt to improve behaviour in the face of a beleaguered justice system where other concrete measures had simply not been properly funded for years. I am sceptical however as to whether or not the robing scheme made a material difference to aggressive or violent behaviour at court, in the absence of sufficiently numerous and visibly present security staff, for example, or genuinely separate waiting areas, or sufficient conference rooms.
A survey of the impact of the robing scheme was conducted before, during and after the pilot scheme, to assess whether there was any difference in proceedings. Unfortunately this information does not appear to have been made publicly available. It is telling however that 12 months after the pilot scheme was introduced, the Central Family Court seems to have retained robing for judges for children cases and has provided for optional robing in financial remedies cases (this is taken from anecdotal information, and not any public announcement). The retention of the robing scheme would suggest that the impact has been positive, at least to some extent. If it has made a material improvement, it is unclear why this robing scheme has not then been rolled out across the country to other Family Courts, or indeed to all courts and tribunals generally.
The issue of judicial security continues to remain firmly on the agenda. The Lady Chief Justice for example in her annual press conference in February 2025 noted that ‘concerns over judicial security are at an all-time high’, before outlining ‘a rolling national programme of improvements to courts’[3]. In April 2025, the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane dedicated an entire section of his annual View from the Presidents Chambers to the issue of judicial security; he echoed the Lady Chief Justice’s comments regarding judicial security being a priority, and highlighted that training will be given to all Family judiciary in the Spring; that the HMCTS ‘Potentially Violent Persons Protocol’ is being updated; and that there will be a Judicial Security Taskforce to consider the issue of both physical security as well as online threats and abuse[4].
What was striking about the LCJ’s annual conference was her acknowledgement of the necessary limitations upon security due to the physical constraints in courtrooms across the country. She said: “you all know the issues about [the size of some] of these courts when you’ll have a judge sitting in a room a quarter of the size of this with no usher, no clerk, doing a very heated family dispute, taking a parent’s child away in a tiny room with no physical barriers at all. So you can understand how problems occur”[5]. It is evident, therefore, that any security measures or training provided may be inevitably undermined by the unsuitable court buildings and courtrooms. I wonder how effective any improved security measures might be in the context where judges tasked with determining a heated family dispute may continue to be required to sit in a small room with no or very limited physical barriers.
I would add a further concern: judges will frequently need to determine disputes involving at least one litigant in person and sometimes two. The most recent Family Court statistics from October to December 2024 show that 39% of private law cases had no legal representative involvement whatsoever, followed by 27% applicant only: at least two thirds of private law cases therefore have at least one litigant in person[6]. Readers who practice will be familiar with the difficulties judges commonly face when attempting to determine complex and emotionally fraught cases involving a litigant in person who rightly or wrongly feels aggrieved by the process or by the other party. This is a particular problem in cases involving domestic abuse where special measures are required. I hate to think what would have happened to my client in April 2024 if she had been left to represent herself at a final hearing against her ex-husband abuser who was willing to act violently, despite being at court. It was unacceptable that she was exposed to intimidating behaviour, whether directly, or indirectly via her representative, whilst attending court to have her matter determined. It is small comfort to think that she was not required to face her ex-husband alone, but it is a concern that there will be many individuals who do not have the luxury of a legal representative and who will be alone in similar circumstances.
Whilst it is of the utmost importance that judges are properly protected, particularly in the current climate where they are targeted as ‘enemies of the people’, it is important to ensure that proper security measures are afforded to all court users, not just those on the bench. After all, the CFC announcement back in April 2024 referenced incidents of violent and threatening behaviour that had been experienced by judges and court users. It is imperative that all court users can attend court and not feel exposed and vulnerable at a time when they are having to engage in often complex and heated hearings, particularly where they may not have a legal representative. This is especially significant for victims of domestic abuse, who may be re-traumatised during proceedings in the Family Court. Indeed, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report of July 2023 ‘The Family Court and domestic abuse: achieving cultural change’ noted that ‘victims and survivors of domestic abuse find going through the Family Court retraumatising’, and concerningly but unsurprisingly in the writer’s experience, ‘Special measures, while in theory available, were found often not to be successfully deployed’[7]. Proper measures are required to protect court users from being re-traumatised or exposed to intimidation and violence during the court process. This includes, but is not limited to, genuinely separate waiting areas and secure conference rooms, and adequate legal aid funding for both parties in a dispute.
Are these issues already being addressed? To some extent, yes. Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council, has been clear of her agenda to achieve funding for legal advice and representation for both parties in children matters relating to domestic abuse. In respect of funding for the court system, in March the Lord Chancellor announced ‘record’ court investment, with funding for repairs and maintenance rising from £120 million last year to £148.5 million this year[8] (though this is far below the sums required to address the repairs backlog). Funding has also been provided for new court centres, such as the new tribunal centre in London at Newgate Street, and a county and family court in Reading.
Hopefully these new court centres will have the facilities required to ensure that special measures are not a theoretical ideal, but a certainty for any court users in domestic abuse-related matters. Only by ensuring that there is adequate funding for the justice system – including adequate security, purpose-built conference rooms and courtrooms, and adequate legal aid funding – will there truly be access to justice for all court users.
Jennifer Lanigan, Barrister, 4KBW
[1] https://www.judiciary.uk/robing-pilot-begins-at-central-family-court/#:~:text=From%20Monday%2015%20April%202024,by%20judges%20and%20court%20users
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75zlg8mpo
[3] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LCJ-press-conference-transcript-18.02.24-1.pdf
[4] https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/a-view-from-the-presidents-chambers-april-2025/
[5] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LCJ-press-conference-transcript-18.02.24-1.pdf
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2024#legal-representation
[7] https://domesticabusecommissioner.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DAC_Family-Court-Report-_2023_Digital.pdf, p18.
[8] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/westminster-update-lord-chancellor-announces-record-courts-investment
