info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
Journalism, Judges and Justice – a crisis in court reporting?

Journalism, Judges and Justice – a crisis in court reporting?

by Paul M | Apr 20, 2018 | Comment, Transparency News

A report on Open Justice from the Chartered Institute of Journalists warns of “an unprecedented, and sustained, attack on the journalism profession, which has taken a toll on our ability to cover courts, and report on their function”. Its author is Tim Crook, Vice...
Litigant’s claim struck out for discussing case during break in giving evidence – a cautionary tale

Litigant’s claim struck out for discussing case during break in giving evidence – a cautionary tale

by Paul M | Apr 15, 2018 | Cases, Explanation

It’s one of the cardinal rules of court procedure: once you’ve entered the witness box and started to give evidence, you mustn’t discuss the case with anyone outside court, if there’s a break in the proceedings, until you’ve finished giving evidence. While the...
Why the Court of Protection gave permission for blood samples to be taken in Skripal poisoning case

Why the Court of Protection gave permission for blood samples to be taken in Skripal poisoning case

by Paul M | Mar 26, 2018 | Cases, Court of Protection, Explanation

The alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy now living in England, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury earlier this month has been prominently reported in the news. Investigations into the nature of the military-grade nerve agent allegedly used on...
Press regulation: the end of the road for Leveson reforms

Press regulation: the end of the road for Leveson reforms

by Paul M | Mar 4, 2018 | Comment, Consultations

On 1 March 2018 the government announced that it would not be proceeding with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, and would seek to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This post explains the background to that decision and assesses where that...
Dealing with sex abuse: How does the Family Court assess risk?

Dealing with sex abuse: How does the Family Court assess risk?

by Paul M | Mar 4, 2018 | Comment

In the latest in her series of lectures on Transparency in the Family Justice System, Gresham Professor of Law, Jo Delahunty QC considered the problems faced by the courts in dealing with family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse.   A warning Jo...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Jolyon Maugham on Censorship by Meta? update on Pringle v Nervo
  • Linda on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Anon on Why doesn’t the family court punish professionals who break the rules?
  • Louisa Biggs on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lainie on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.