Full Story: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0851.htm
June 9 session Detention of terror suspects Proposals to extend the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days are "right for the security of the country," the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, insisted despite lawyers' claims that the measure would breach human rights regulations. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said it would seek judicial review if the extension was passed in Wednesday's crucial Commons vote and published legal advice claiming it could violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne called on Smith to drop the "ill thought-out, illiberal and counter-productive" measures. But the home secretary said: "Not only are my proposals compatible with the ECHR, as I spelt out in a letter to the chair of the EHRC ... but they are right for the security of this country." Manchester congestion charge The government gave the provisional go-ahead for a Pfund2.8bn package to introduce a congestion charge and improve public transport in Manchester. The transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, told the Commons ministers backed the scheme "in principle" and would work with Greater Manchester to develop it. Kelly said Pfund1.5bn of central government funding was being made available to meet the cost of the package. The majority of the improvements to public transport will take place before introduction of a congestion charge in 2013. For the Tories, Theresa Villiers accused the government of "bullying" and called for a referendum covering the whole of Greater Manchester. She taunted Kelly over whether she would "back her government or her constituents" of Bolton West over the proposals. Kelly's statement could be "the longest resignation letter in history", Villiers suggested.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Monday, 9 June 2008
Hemel Hempstead Protest Hits Headlines; 'Stop Injustice Now' In The News!
Full Story: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/HH_01-Media.htm
PROTESTORS from Justice for Families met with Hemel Hempstead shoppers last week. North London couple Ian and Sarah Walton caught the attention of passers-by on Tuesday, May 27 with rows of banners when they set up camp on Marlowes. The pair travel the country to discuss experiences of family courts with members of the public. More information on Justice for Families
PROTESTORS from Justice for Families met with Hemel Hempstead shoppers last week. North London couple Ian and Sarah Walton caught the attention of passers-by on Tuesday, May 27 with rows of banners when they set up camp on Marlowes. The pair travel the country to discuss experiences of family courts with members of the public. More information on Justice for Families
Another Victim of Social Services; Elisha Allen 'Small Baby'
Full Story: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/victim_0043.htm
An investigation has been launched into how a five month old girl was killed by her father while being monitored by social services. Elisha Allen was classified as "at risk" even before she was born and died from head injuries after being shaken to death by Gary Allen. Allen, 25, and her mother Claire Morton, 30, were scrutinised by social workers in Sunderland during the pregnancy. But two months before the birth, the pair moved two miles away into a different local authority area with its own social services department in County Durham.
An investigation has been launched into how a five month old girl was killed by her father while being monitored by social services. Elisha Allen was classified as "at risk" even before she was born and died from head injuries after being shaken to death by Gary Allen. Allen, 25, and her mother Claire Morton, 30, were scrutinised by social workers in Sunderland during the pregnancy. But two months before the birth, the pair moved two miles away into a different local authority area with its own social services department in County Durham.
Children: Private Law Update (June 2008)
Full Story: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/flw_0201.htm
New Practice Directions New guidance has been published relating to the rule 9.5 appointment of a Guardian in private proceedings. The guidance issued on the 25th February 2005 has been revoked. An order in the county court joining a child to private law proceedings and appointing a Guardian may now be made by any nominated Judge or District Judge. Practitioners are reminded of the Practice Direction on the Representation of Children in family proceedings of the 5th April 2004 which remains valid. Further guidance is to be found in the form of a new practice direction entitled Residence And Contact Orders: Domestic Violence And Harm, was published by the President of the Family Division on the 9th May 2008. It applies to High Court, County Court or FPC proceedings in which an application is made for a residence order or a contact order in respect of a child under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or in which any question arises about residence or about contact between a child and a parent or other family member. The guidance is to be followed in any such case in which it is alleged or there is otherwise reason to suppose, that the subject child or a party has experienced domestic violence perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such violence. Leave To Remove There have been two recent cases on leave to remove from the jurisdiction. In Re G (Leave to Remove) [2008] EWHC 324 (Fam) the Court of Appeal dealt with a submission from the Appellant that Payne v Payne was being misapplied by the lower Courts. The Court confirmed the approach as stated in Payne. The second case has potentially far-reaching consequences in relation to the Court's hearing directly from the children involved in proceedings. In Re W (Children) (2008), [2008] EWCA Civ 538 the Court of Appeal (on the 20th May 2008) allowed an appeal by a Mother who was seeking permission to return to Sweden with the children. The Mother (M) and her former husband (F), who divorced in 2006, were both Swedish nationals. The family lived in a spacious home in London. The children were aged 15, 13 and 11, and were particularly intelligent and mature. M wished to return to Sweden, where housing and private education for the children would be much cheaper. The children supported the move to Sweden. Their wishes and feelings were advanced in the report of a CAFCASS officer. The CAFCASS officer applied her own analysis to the children's statement, with the result that she ended up advising the judge to exercise a degree of caution in evaluating the children's stated wishes. The judge had raised the possibility of meeting with the children, but the matter was not pursued and M's counsel did not press the point. M submitted that the judge had erred in weighing up the financial factors, in particular the effect that refusal of her application would have upon the London home that she and her children would be sharing.
New Practice Directions New guidance has been published relating to the rule 9.5 appointment of a Guardian in private proceedings. The guidance issued on the 25th February 2005 has been revoked. An order in the county court joining a child to private law proceedings and appointing a Guardian may now be made by any nominated Judge or District Judge. Practitioners are reminded of the Practice Direction on the Representation of Children in family proceedings of the 5th April 2004 which remains valid. Further guidance is to be found in the form of a new practice direction entitled Residence And Contact Orders: Domestic Violence And Harm, was published by the President of the Family Division on the 9th May 2008. It applies to High Court, County Court or FPC proceedings in which an application is made for a residence order or a contact order in respect of a child under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or in which any question arises about residence or about contact between a child and a parent or other family member. The guidance is to be followed in any such case in which it is alleged or there is otherwise reason to suppose, that the subject child or a party has experienced domestic violence perpetrated by another party or that there is a risk of such violence. Leave To Remove There have been two recent cases on leave to remove from the jurisdiction. In Re G (Leave to Remove) [2008] EWHC 324 (Fam) the Court of Appeal dealt with a submission from the Appellant that Payne v Payne was being misapplied by the lower Courts. The Court confirmed the approach as stated in Payne. The second case has potentially far-reaching consequences in relation to the Court's hearing directly from the children involved in proceedings. In Re W (Children) (2008), [2008] EWCA Civ 538 the Court of Appeal (on the 20th May 2008) allowed an appeal by a Mother who was seeking permission to return to Sweden with the children. The Mother (M) and her former husband (F), who divorced in 2006, were both Swedish nationals. The family lived in a spacious home in London. The children were aged 15, 13 and 11, and were particularly intelligent and mature. M wished to return to Sweden, where housing and private education for the children would be much cheaper. The children supported the move to Sweden. Their wishes and feelings were advanced in the report of a CAFCASS officer. The CAFCASS officer applied her own analysis to the children's statement, with the result that she ended up advising the judge to exercise a degree of caution in evaluating the children's stated wishes. The judge had raised the possibility of meeting with the children, but the matter was not pursued and M's counsel did not press the point. M submitted that the judge had erred in weighing up the financial factors, in particular the effect that refusal of her application would have upon the London home that she and her children would be sharing.
Assessing Risk: A Report on the Family Justice Council Annual Seminar
Full Story: http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/flw_0202.htm
The highly successful London Family Justice Council's Seminar was held in April where 300 delegates who work in Family Justice attended. Delegates ranged from members of the judiciary, barristers, solicitors, magistrates clerks, CAFCASS, Guardians and representatives from the Ministry of Justice to name but a few. As this annual seminar was heavily oversubscribed I have attempted to highlight the key points of the talks during the day for the readers of Family Law Week. The theme of the seminar was risk assessments and two eminent speakers attended to deliver lectures on the subject. Professor Don Grubin Professor of Forensic Psychiatry from Newcastle University discussed risk assessments, their usefulness and validity and Dr Gillian Mezey Reader and Consultant in Forensic Psychiatry from St George's University of London discussed risk assessments in the context of domestic violence. What to make of risk assessments? The three key points which Professor Grubin's made in his lecture were: Know your expert area better than the experts Challenge the meaning of risk Know what is behind the risk assessments In Professor Grubin's experience the attitude in the USA was very different in respect of experts where lawyers would know the area of expertise as well as if not better than the expert and would cross examine much more vigorously having the knowledge from their own research to ask the right questions. Professor Grubin's suggestion for the UK family courts was for a single court appointed expert in cases with each party being able to have an expert to advise them on the court appointed expert's report and areas for cross examination. It was his opinion that lawyers should have a good enough understanding of expert areas to be able to cross examine effectively and this means keeping abreast of all the developments in a particular area and knowing the new research papers on the topic.
The highly successful London Family Justice Council's Seminar was held in April where 300 delegates who work in Family Justice attended. Delegates ranged from members of the judiciary, barristers, solicitors, magistrates clerks, CAFCASS, Guardians and representatives from the Ministry of Justice to name but a few. As this annual seminar was heavily oversubscribed I have attempted to highlight the key points of the talks during the day for the readers of Family Law Week. The theme of the seminar was risk assessments and two eminent speakers attended to deliver lectures on the subject. Professor Don Grubin Professor of Forensic Psychiatry from Newcastle University discussed risk assessments, their usefulness and validity and Dr Gillian Mezey Reader and Consultant in Forensic Psychiatry from St George's University of London discussed risk assessments in the context of domestic violence. What to make of risk assessments? The three key points which Professor Grubin's made in his lecture were: Know your expert area better than the experts Challenge the meaning of risk Know what is behind the risk assessments In Professor Grubin's experience the attitude in the USA was very different in respect of experts where lawyers would know the area of expertise as well as if not better than the expert and would cross examine much more vigorously having the knowledge from their own research to ask the right questions. Professor Grubin's suggestion for the UK family courts was for a single court appointed expert in cases with each party being able to have an expert to advise them on the court appointed expert's report and areas for cross examination. It was his opinion that lawyers should have a good enough understanding of expert areas to be able to cross examine effectively and this means keeping abreast of all the developments in a particular area and knowing the new research papers on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)