Unregulated Family Court helpers highlighted by voyeur teacher case

Former north Cumbrian secondary school teacher Curtis Clarke, 39, is currently serving a 29-month jail term for voyeurism and disclosing private sexual images.

The Carlisle Crown Court judge who jailed him described Clarke as a “self-serving, highly controlling narcissist,” who during his trial had shown himself to be a "glib and easy liar."

The defendant secretly filmed a woman as they had sex and then later, after falling out with her, used stills from the film to create a poster, which he stuck to a Carlisle city centre pub toilet wall, along with her name and phone number.

Yet several months after he was charged, and a week after he was convicted, Clarke was advertising as a fee-charging “McKenzie Friend,” supporting people in Family Court proceedings.(Image: Web)

The organisation he worked with says it will now review its vetting procedures, accepting that officials were wrong to trust Clarke.

The issue was highlighted by Carlisle Family Court's Judge Clive Baker after he rejected an application by Clarke for an injunction, as he claimed it was necessary to protect him from a woman he accused of harassing him.

Such Family Court “non-molestation” applications are usually confidential.

But Judge Baker said his ruling on Clarke’s application should be made public because of the public interest in people knowing of his criminal history should he ever try to resume his McKenzie Friend work.

In his application, Clarke complained that the woman told his employer about the allegations he faced and that she had attended his trial.

“As well as being a qualified teacher, Mr Clarke used to work as a paid McKenzie friend assisting individuals involved in court proceedings, including as I understand it, family court proceedings,” said Judge Baker.

Clarke complained that his criminal trial “had nothing to do” with the woman and accused her of providing the News & Star with a photograph of him before later posting a comment on our website, saying: “Hello Curtis.’

“Mr Clarke alleges that those actions amount to harassment of him,” said the judge, noting that the defendant made no reference in his offences.

The judge quoted the crown court judge who said of Clarke: ‘It is apparent throughout interview Mr Clark's main concern is for the impact upon himself.” Clarke minimised his offending, showing minimal concern for his victim.

The application for a non-molestation order was “totally without merit.”

Of the allegation that the woman contacted his employer, Judge Baker said: “Any individual informing any such agency of Mr Clarke’s behaviour is, in my view, undertaking an activity designed to protect the public, not an activity harassing Mr Clarke.

“Indeed, the thought of someone like Mr Clarke acting as a McKenzie friend in proceedings which involve confidential documents and at times vulnerable parties, causes me, as Designated Family Judge for Cumbria, considerable disquiet.

“No court should, in my view, consent to him so acting without first being informed as to the fact and circumstances of his previous criminality.”

Judge Baker also dismissed Clarke’s complaint that the woman watched his trial, saying it was a public hearing in a public court.

Explaining why he has chosen to make his ruling public, Judge Baker highlighted Clarke’s work as a paid McKenzie Friend, stressing that he was not in any way criticising the organisation.

“The fact that ‘paid’ McKenzie Friends are not subject to regulation is a matter for Parliament,” continued the Judge.

The lack of a regulatory body means that when there are concerns about an individual there is no central organisation through concerns can be promulgated or investigated, said the judge.

Judge Baker concluded: “The most compelling reason to publish the judgment relates to the public interest in doing so.

Any person who wants help from a McKenzie Friend, or any court involved, is entitled to know if there is something significant and relevant about the individual, said Judge Baker.

“Mr Clarke has convictions for offences that involve elements of deception, and the public disclosure of highly confidential material and breaches of trust.

“Being a McKenzie Friend, certainly in family proceedings, involves access to evidence relating both to any party being assisted and any other parties in a case.

“That information is often personal, frequently private and sometimes intimate.  Family proceedings regularly involve parties who could readily be defined as ‘vulnerable’…

“It is appropriate that, should Mr Clarke, upon his release from prison, decide he wishes to resume his role as a McKenzie Friend, a publicly available record of his criminal behaviour be accessible in such a way as to specifically highlight the potential interrelationship between those offences and any function he may seek to undertake in the context of being a McKenzie Friend.

“Accordingly, I am entirely satisfied that it is appropriate for my previous and this judgment to be published in such a way as to identify the applicant.”

The News & Star approached the online Find A McKenzie Friend service for comment. One of its directors, who asked to be identified only as Dominic, accepted that there are “lessons to be learned.”

He said all McKenzie Friends are vetted, and this includes criminal record checks. Any person convicted of a sexual offence will not be allowed to do such work.

He said: “Curtis did open up to us that he had criminal proceedings in place and his version of events was that it was a witch-hunt. We have a policy where if there is an allegation, we treat it as an allegation.

“When he signed up, we said immediately that you must notify immediately if there is any police involvement in your life or court proceedings. He did volunteer that he was going through a court process.

“He told us about it.”

He said Clarke did not, however, tell the organisation he was charged with voyeurism. Any person being charged such a serious offence, he said, would trigger  suspension.

Asked why Clarke was advertising on the website several months after he was charged with voyeurism, and disclosing private sexual images, Dominic said: “We operate based on trust.” He said Clarke failed to tell the organisation of his conviction.

He continued: “We found out about him being charged from the tabloids. It was another McKenzie Friend who said ‘look at what we’ve found online. Immediately we went for suspension.”

He could not give a date for that suspension.

But two weeks after learning of the conviction, he said, the organisation barred from its online platform, he said.  He added: “The whole agreement was that he should keep us up to date and he didn’t. We had to hear it from a third party.”

Dominic said he agreed that McKenzie Friends should be formally regulated. “We have banned quite a number of McKenzie Friend, and we have named and shamed them. We will ensure he never acts as a McKenzie Friend again.

“It’s high time we had some form of regulation from the Government. We deal with vulnerable people on a daily basis – people who are looking for some support through the Family Courts. If there is a regulatory body, people would be able to see who is in good standing.

“Regulation would mean we are more recognised.”

He added that McKenzie Friends who have experience of family law and training can offer a unique insight and support to the people they help. “The ones we have do a great job for people who are not able to afford solicitors.

Asked what lessons were learned, he said the organisation will now consider immediately suspending McKenzie Friends as soon as any serious allegation is made against them, followed by dismissal on conviction.

“This is something we want to implement as soon as possible,” he said. “We can also do checks more frequently – six monthly. We can also check with the courts. In Curtis’s case, we could have been more proactive.

“These are the lessons.”

* Clarke, more recently living at Leighton Buzzard, admitted disclosing private sexual images but he denied voyeurism. He was convicted of that offence in July, though he was continuing to advertise on the Find A McKenzie Friend website in early August.

In his non-molestation application, he claimed he had been mistreated by various members of the judiciary and misrepresented in both the Family Court and Crown Court trial.