Skip to main content

Family Proceedings Amendment (No 2) Rules 2009

Both of the Statutory Instruments for the family courts are now available. I have loaded them on the JFF website and they are available by the link.

This is not the expected opening of the family courts as journalists are potentially allowed to attend proceedings, but cannot report on them.

Nor do these rules allow second opinions - probably the main cause of the miscarriages of justice in the family courts.

However, they are an improvement. In particular there is a section in the rules:

Communication of information for purposes connected with the proceedings

11.4.—(1) A party or the legal representative of a party, on behalf of and upon the instructions of that party, may communicate information relating to the proceedings to any person where necessary to enable that party—

(a) by confidential discussion, to obtain support, advice or assistance in the conduct of the proceedings;

(b) to engage in mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution;

(c) to make and pursue a complaint against a person or body concerned in the proceedings; or

(d) to make and pursue a complaint regarding the law, policy or procedure relating to a category of proceedings to which this Part applies.

(2) Where information is communicated to any person in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) of this rule, no further communication by that person is permitted.

(3) When information relating to the proceedings is communicated to any person in accordance with paragraphs (1)(b),(c) or (d) of this rule—

(a) the recipient may communicate that information to a further recipient, provided that—

(i) the party who initially communicated the information consents to that further communication; and

(ii) the further communication is made only for the purpose or purposes for which the party made the initial communication; and

(b) the information may be successively communicated to and by further recipients on as many occasions as may be necessary to fulfil the purpose for which the information was initially communicated, provided that on each such occasion the conditions in sub-paragraph (a) are met.

This allows "any person" to be told of what is happening for the above reasons and for that person to pass on the information. This is helpful for MPs as MPs can now as MPs (without making use of Article IX of the Bill of Rights) get total access to the proceedings in the family court as can in fact journalists as long as it is for the above purposes.

The question, however, is how it becomes possible to press for changes outside the system. To have an effect on government it is necessary for people to understand widely what abuses of process have been going on.

I am already able without using Article IX (as above) to talk generally about what happens in the court. However, it becomes possible for better investigative work to be done. It is also easier to take up complaints with the appropriate regulatory authorities which is nigh on impossible at the moment.

Most importantly CAFCASS and the local authority cannot hide behind family court secrecy when responding to enquiries from MPs (or indeed Councillors or anyone else).

Hence these rules are perhaps 2/10 for improving accountability compared to the old rules at 1/10. It will be difficult to steer a path towards revealing what is going on, but it will be easier from 27th April than now.


ian josephs said…
As usual Jack Straw addresses the wrong problem.It is not court secrecy in itself that is the root of the problem.Judges just shrug their shoulders and call it "privacy" to protect families and children.
What is really outrageous is the gagging of parents and even the children themselves. Worse still around 200 victims a year are jailed for breaking the "omerta" wall of silence.It should be the democratic right of any citizen to publicly complain about a perceived injustice without being jailed for their temerity all in the name of protecting their own privacy !Parents and children should like rape victims be free to waive anonymity and to speak out revealing names and details of injustices they claim to have suffered in our "private" family courts !
I cannot understand why more of these stories are not exposed in the press using anonymisation .

Surely that complies with the law but tells the public exactly what really happened.

I'm baffled !
ghost said…
John I think the work you are doing with regards to Family Courts is excellent.

I've visited other MPs blogs and rarely see anyone addressing the real issues of the day that will make any substantial difference to anyone's lives.

Good luck with your campaign and keep up the good work.
moira said…
So the media can go in court but not report. a bit like being allowed to go to the polls but not to vote!!

What happens if an Mp or councellor arent interested in helping a family as in many cases.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…