Simon Heaney

Public Law

Simon regularly represents clients in cases relating to serious non-accidental injury where he has appeared in the family court, High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Likewise, Simon also has extensive experience in dealing with cases involving allegations of sexual abuse, developing a strong reputation for his lateral and diligent approach to his cases, securing the best outcomes, appearing in cases of extreme complexity in the family court, High Court and Court of Appeal.

Simon has also successfully resisted cases of alleged Fictitious Illness, re-opening cases where previous adverse findings have been made and Wardship/Abduction cases involving the recovery of children from countries under terrorist control. He has also been involved in cases regarding unlawful killing in relation to both children and adults.

Private Law

Simon regularly appears in cases involving children being removed from the jurisdiction both in relation to planned applications and recovery. He has appeared in the family court, High Court and Court of Appeal in these cases both in regard to countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention as well as non-Convention jurisdictions.

Simon also appears in intractable, implacable hostility cases and cases involving serious allegations.

He also has experience and expertise of cases involving the withdrawal of medical/life sustaining treatment.

Cases

Re A (Children) (Remote Hearing: Care and Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA Civ 583

Simon was lead by Karl Rowley KC in the Court of Appeal in the first appeal on the issue of remote hearings following the outbreak of Covid 19. The Court provided the cardinal principles that set the template for the conduct of hearings in the family justice system throughout the pandemic.

Re T (interim Care Order: Arrangements for Contact) [2024] EWCA Civil 469

Simon  successfully represented the local authority in the Court of Appeal in relation to the issue of the child’s interim contact arrangements under an interim care order following extreme allegations of harm. The Court also reiterated guidance regarding the drafting of Court orders.

Re P (A child) [2015] EWCA Civ 170

Simon appeared for the appellant father against orders within care proceedings. The father had a histrionic personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. Following the making of final care orders, the local authority significantly reduced the father’s contact and involvement, despite recitals in the order and guidance within the judgment. The father sought to discharge the care order and the application was dismissed. He then obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and instructed me to conduct the appeal against Leading Counsel for the local authority.
‘Despite the father’s express instructions which sought to limit Mr Heaney’s arguments to the compass of the submitted skeleton argument, which effectively did not deal with the contact issue, we permitted Mr Heaney to develop other lines of argument which were more directly focused upon contact and the 91(14) order. For my part I am both grateful for and impressed by the clarity of Mr Heaney’s contribution to this appeal.’ – McFarlane LJ

Re K-L (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 992

Simon appeared for the respondent to the appeal. His client had received differing judgments from the judge at first instance relating to findings of sexual abuse. After the Court of Appeal ordered a re-hearing, Simon subsequently secured exoneration for his client in relation to the allegations.

Re E (A child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1754

Simon appeared for the appellant mother of a new born baby following an interim care order based upon a previously unclear finding of the court relating to the child’s sibling.

‘Mr Heaney was entirely right to seek to raise this point, given the unhelpful lack of clarity in the judge’s judgment..’ (McFarlane LJ)

Re KH (A child) [2012] EWHC B18 (Fam)

Simon represented the mother through the Official Solicitor of a young child with severe brain destruction and significantly reduced life expectancy. Despite the mother being represented by the Official Solicitor, the Court was persuaded to consider the mother’s points of objections to treatments and investigations.

The case was subsequently referred to by the President of the Family Division in Re Jake (a child) [2015] EWHC 2442 (Fam) – ‘The law is reasonably clear and settled. Subject to one important qualification I can take it from the judgment of Peter Jackson J in re KH’ (ibid).

‘Advocacy preparation and conduct’

Simon was a contributor to this resource prepared by the Law Society ‘Whether you’re representing a client in court for the first time or the fiftieth, it’s important that you know how to prepare for a case before proceedings begin and what behaviour is expected in the courtroom.’ The full resource can be found here

In an article published in ‘Family Law Journal’ entitled ‘Interim contact: do private and public law proceedings apply different criteria?’  Simon poses the question – Is there a difference in approach to this exercise when the court is considering private law proceedings on the one hand and public law proceedings on the other? Having recently appeared in the case of T Re T (Interim Care Order: Arrangements for Contact) Simon Heaney looks at the mechanisms and procedures under each area and discusses whether as a result the court has in effect developed distinct approaches.

Subscribers to Family Law can find the full article here

“Where are we going?”, Law Society Advocacy Section: October 2016

“Vulnerable Witnesses: Safety measures“, Family Law Journal: June 2015

“Prepare for the Unexpected”, Law Society Advocacy Section: October 2015

• Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Training