The application
8.On 29 November 2022 Thames Valley police applied to the Court for ‘disclosure of statements, documents and as appropriate, testimony that make reference to any covert recordings obtained by Mrs F, and to any threat of harm towards Mrs F by Mr G. TVP also request under practice direction 12G a copy of the final judgement made in the family proceedings.’9.There is no witness statement in support of the application.10.Miss Perry KC, representing the mother, submits that both the mother and her solicitors had attempted to contact the police a number of times to discover what the police said they required, and on what legal basis. Her instructions are that the police refused to discuss the ambit of the application in correspondence with either the mother or her solicitor. 11.I was told that the Officer in Charge of the investigation, DC D, who did attend the application hearing before me, had been on rest days in advance of the hearing and this is why there was neither a statement in support, nor any meaningful dialogue between the police and the mother or her solicitors in advance of the hearing. It seems that it had been anticipated that the application would be agreed.12.Ms Tinsley appeared for the police at the hearing. She had prepared a skeleton argument. She told me that the application was made at the direction of the Crown Prosecution Service to assist with the decision-making process in respect of whether to bring charges (i) against Mr G for threats to kill Ms F; and (ii) Mrs F for stalking and computer misuse in respect of Mr G. In her skeleton argument she said, ‘the material that TVP specifically seek relates to mitigation provided by Mrs F and the level of risk presented by Mr G towards Mrs F and the children.’13.The application notice refers to Practice Direction 12G of the Family Procedure Rules. This contains a table setting out who may communicate what kind of information relating to the proceedings, to whom, and for what purpose.14.Within that table it is set out that ‘a party’, may communicate to ‘a police officer’, ‘the text or summary of the whole or part of a judgment given in the proceedings’, ‘for the purpose of a criminal investigation.’15.Practice Direction 12G permits a party to provide the police with a copy of a judgment, but it does not create an entitlement for the police to receive it. Practice direction 12G does not provide for disclosure of other documents from Family Court proceedings to the police. 16.Ms Tinsley did not press the application under practice direction 12G. She submitted that the application was made under rule 12.73 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The rule 12.73(a) provides that information relating to proceedings held in private may be communicated to various classes of individual, including at sub-paragraph (viii), ‘a professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children’.17.Ms Tinsley asserted that in this case the police should be regarded as having standing to make the application, as ‘a professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children’. The police can and do act in furtherance of the protection of children, but it could not realistically be said that this application is made ‘in furtherance of the protection of children’. It is made in furtherance of criminal investigations. The application cannot succeed under 12.73(a)(viii)).18.Alternatively, Ms Tinsley said that rule 12.73(b) provides that information relating to proceedings held in private may be communicated, ‘where the court gives permission’.19.The Court has a discretion as to whether or not to give permission. Ms Tinsley refers me to the leading case of