‘Would you give the court your full name, please?’
‘Wendy Cameron.’
Andrew Pilkington smiled. ‘Mrs Cameron, please remember that this is a large courtroom and everyone has to hear what you say; and although I’m asking you the questions, try to direct your answers to the jury.’
‘I’ll do my best.’
‘I’m sure you will. Mrs Cameron, what do you do for a living?’
‘I am a welfare officer for the Family Division of the High Court.’
‘How long have you worked in that capacity?’
‘For about seven years. I started when it was still called the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division.’
‘Can you explain briefly what a court welfare officer does?’
‘Yes. In divorce cases the judges often have to decide where the children of the family will live, which parent they will live with, and how often the other parent will see the children. The judge can ask a welfare officer to prepare a report dealing with all these things, to assist him in reaching a conclusion.’
‘Thank you. Just before I ask you about the report itself, what qualifications does a welfare officer need?’
She smiled. ‘I’m not sure what the formal qualifications are, if there are any. The judges rely mainly on our experience. I had a number of years of experience as a child welfare officer in North London before I applied. It’s mostly a question of knowing where to look and what questions to ask.’
‘I’m sure there’s no such thing as an average case, Mrs Cameron –’
‘No, there’s not –’
‘No. But can you give the jury a general idea of what you would do in order to prepare a report for the judge?’
‘There are certain things we always do. I’m not sure all officers necessarily do them in the same order, but they have to be done. I always begin by meeting with both parties, just to explain my role a bit more, and tell them what to expect, and hopefully to reassure them that I am neutral and I’m not starting out with any preconceived ideas.’
‘Then, what?’
‘Then I interview the parties in turn. I start with the party who has initiated the divorce or the proceedings for custody. There’s no particular reason for that except that it’s an objective reason to start with that party, so it doesn’t give rise to any suspicion that I am starting out for or against either of them.’
‘All right.’
‘Then I interview the other party.’
‘Let me ask you this. Do you tell each party what the other has said to you?’
‘No. But I have to explain to them that the welfare of the children is the overriding consideration. So, while I will keep what they say confidential, as far as I can, and I certainly wouldn’t repeat what they say for no good reason, at the end of the day there is no privilege involved. I must include in my report anything I think the judge should know in the children’s best interests, which may mean telling the judge – and the other side – about things a party might prefer to keep quiet about.’
‘What else do you do?’
‘I also look at the accommodation and educational arrangements the parties are proposing. I take into account the parents’ financial situation, of course, and I look at the living conditions before the break-up. A divorce always means that there is less money to go around than there was before, so you can’t expect the same standard of living, and in any case that’s not the only consideration.’
‘Do you talk to the children?’
‘If it’s appropriate.’
‘When is it appropriate or inappropriate?’
‘It depends on a number of things. Age is always important. The older the children are, the more likely it is that I will talk to them. In fact, by the age of about twelve or thirteen, most judges will want to know whether the child has expressed any view about where he or she wants to live. But if the child is too traumatised, or I’m not sure he or she is mature enough to express a reliable opinion, I may decide not to speak to them.’
‘Are the parents involved in your decision whether or not you talk to a child?’
‘I listen to what the parents have to say, but it’s my decision. If I decide I should talk to the child, I do it. If the parent resists, I simply tell them that I will ask the judge to make an order. That usually does the trick. Actually, the parents’ reaction when I ask to speak to a child can be quite revealing, and I always pay attention to it.’
She paused to drink from the glass of water Geoffrey had placed in front of her on the witness box.
‘Afterwards, I interview the parents again, separately and together, to give them the opportunity to add anything they wish to add, or to ask me any questions.’
‘And based on everything you’ve done, do you then present a written report to the judge?’
‘I make a written report, and I am available at the hearing to answer any questions from the judge or the parties.’
‘Yes. Thank you, Mrs Cameron. Let me move on to ask you about Susan and Henry Lang. How did you become involved in their case?’
‘I was assigned to attend the first hearing in front of Mr Justice Wesley. Both counsel agreed that a welfare officer’s report would be useful. The judge accepted that view and asked me to prepare it.’
‘And, it is not in dispute I think, the learned judge awarded interim custody to Susan Lang, but ordered that Henry, the defendant, should see the children every other weekend. Is that right?’
‘Yes. The children were with Susan and the judge felt that it would be pointless to move them pending the final hearing. That’s a common enough thing for a judge to do. He made it very clear that it was only an interim order and that the final hearing could go either way.’
‘Can you please now tell the jury what you did in order to prepare your report?’
‘I spoke to both parties and their solicitors that same morning, while they were at court, and I made appointments to interview Henry first, as it was his application for custody, and then Susan.’
‘Typically, where do your interviews take place?’
‘Whenever possible, I try to conduct the individual interviews at the party’s home. They tend to be more relaxed there, and if home is the accommodation they are proposing for the children, it saves time because I can inspect the premises while I’m there. If a party prefers, he or she can come to my office instead, and I always use my office when I am interviewing the parties together.’
‘What happened in this case?’
‘Both Henry and Susan were happy for me to interview them at home, but they wanted me to come back for a formal assessment of the premises because there were changes they were planning to make for the children. That was fine. It’s not unusual. It means that I can at least take a preliminary look around.’
‘And did you in fact interview each of them in turn?’
‘Yes, I did.’
‘Did you meet the children?’
‘No. They were not at home when I interviewed Susan.’
‘And because of the way in which events unfolded, did you ever meet the children?’
‘No.’
‘What was the next step?’
‘I arranged a joint meeting with Henry and Susan at my office.’
‘When and where was that meeting to take place?’
‘On a Wednesday, 28 April, at about lunchtime. Both of them said that was a convenient time.’
‘And where is your office?’
‘It’s in my home, number 26 Dombey Street. It’s a large house, and I use the first floor as my office space.’
Andrew turned to Mr Justice Rainer.
‘My Lord, the jury are going to hear a great deal about the area surrounding Mrs Cameron’s house. If there is no objection, we have a scale plan of the area. I ask that the plan become our Exhibit 1, and it may be convenient if the jury could see it now.’
Ben stood. ‘I have no objection, my Lord.’
‘Yes, very well,’ the judge replied.
Andrew waited for Geoffrey to provide Wendy Cameron with a copy, and to distribute copies to the jury, one between two.
‘Mrs Cameron, on the plan the usher has handed you, do you see your house, number 26, marked with an arrow?’
‘Yes.’
‘Do the front windows of your house overlook Dombey Street, and does your house face directly on to the entrance to Harpur Mews?’
‘Yes, actually, the entrance leads into a courtyard, which goes all the way through past the mews itself, to Harpur Street, which runs parallel to Dombey Street.’
‘Yes, I see. Now, I know this will be difficult for you, but I must ask you about the events of 28 April.’