Skip to main content

Further progress on fair trials in the family courts

This story in the Daily Mail reports on This case (Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and Reasons) where Pauffley J has looked at the issue of a case in the FPC where the Justices basically rubber stamped a document from the local authority. Another important case is Re C (A Child) where the president of the Queens Bench supports a call for proper procedure to be followed in terms of dealings in the court of first instance.



    The President of the Queen's Bench Division:

  1. I agree with both judgments. Having seen the judgments in draft, Ms van der Leij has expressed concern about the comments at paragraphs 10-11 of Macur LJ and paragraph 36 of Aikens LJ dealing with the e-mail exchanges subsequent to the hearing. She observes that "it is by no means unusual for practitioners in the Principal Registry to e mail district judges directly seeking clarification of matters raised in a hearing". It is one thing, if invited, to make submissions in relation to the terms of an order provided that every communication is copied to every party; it is another to express dissent and seek to engage in further argument. If that is not unusual, it is important that the problems which it generates should be recognised and that the practice should cease. First, it suggests (even if it is not the case) that advocates can go behind the scenes to resolve issues in favour of their clients and, as Macur LJ observes, will give rise to allegations of 'stitch up'. Secondly, it will encourage litigants in person (who do not have the same understanding of the law or practice) to adopt a similar approach thereby disrupting the finality of the judgment of the court and generating continued uncertainty.

Progress is being made.  If we can stop corrupt legal advisors and advocates from undermining their own clients that would help as well.   However, a key to this is getting evidence that is reliable. (as I say in the Daily Mail article).

Comments

Unknown said…
Well both me and my partner have been stitched up like kippers. Our social worker saying she had no concerns, even letting my daughter around my partner unattended "saying she's in better place now then year ago but still taking it to PRO. Why???
Unknown said…
It's a shame that all the adoption cases against parental consent aren't going to be reviewed , I was stitched up by my social worker in 2006/07 which granted the forced adoption of my son.
Time will never heal the damage caused even 9 years later, it's unbearable knowing that you've done nothing wrong and get treat worse than a criminal

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.