Welcome to the Roundup, where we correct, clarify and comment on media reports of family law, explain and comment on published family court judgments, and highlight other transparency news.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF FAMILY LAW, TRANSPARENCY etc
The Guardian had an editorial The Guardian view on the family courts: the first principle must be safety (3 October 2024) prompted by the tenth anniversary of the murder of Claire Throssell’s two young sons, Jack and Paul, described as ‘a horrifying reminder of the catastrophic consequences that can follow when the family justice system makes mistakes’. It notes that ‘a decade later, there is plenty of evidence that poor decisions are still being made when domestic violence victims come before family judges’. While efforts have been made to make the courts more open and accountable, lack of reliable data remains a major barrier to improving the family justice system.
The Daily Echo reported Bursledon mother faked DNA test to stop dad seeing newborn (28 September 2024) about a 25-year-old woman named Georgina Saville who apparently has a masters degree in forensic psychology and who had edited a picture of a DNA test she found online to say her new boyfriend Danny Mellows was actually the father of her newborn baby rather than her ex, Kyle Fitton. Saville admitted the act to jurors but claimed it was ‘obvious’ it wasn’t a real DNA test and had ‘only done it to get her ex’s solicitor off her back’. She was convicted at Southampton Crown Court for perverting the course of public justice and wilfully making a false declaration as to a birth.
The BBC reported that Sex charge tutor case reveals ‘massive’ safeguarding hole (3 October 2024) after its investigation found that ‘a man charged with sexual assault has been advertising as a private tutor for children in maths and science’. It refers to previous reporting of people convicted of sexual offences offering services as private tutors to children, the problem being that ‘there is no legal obligation for private tutors to undergo any background checks or be qualified to teach’. Though charged and bailed pending trial, the man, a former teacher, is not being named for legal reasons, the BBC said. (Presumably so as not to identify the victims.)
The Guardian reported Man who sent girl to Iraq for FGM jailed in legal first for England and Wales (3 October 2024). This concerned Emad Kaky, 47, a former PhD student and visiting academic, who has been sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court to four and a half years in prison for arranging to send a young girl to Iraq for female genital mutilation (FGM), before a forced marriage. It is apparently the first such conviction in England and Wales. Kaky’s association with Nottingham University has been severed, a spokesperson saying ‘There is no place for such barbaric offences in our society and our thoughts are with those who have been affected by these actions.’
The Times (£) reported on Eco tycoon accused of rushing divorce to deny his wife a title (3 October 2024) which concerned the divorce of Dale and Kate Vince, in which the husband was alleged to be ‘attempting to hasten their divorce so [the wife] would not benefit from his potential elevation to the House of Lords’. It seems Dale, a big Labour donor, was thought to have reasonable expectations of being clad in ermine by the new government, a suggestion dismissed by Dale’s legal team as an attempt to turn the proceedings into a ‘circus’. The newspaper report mentions that the wife’s lawyers ‘cited a 1993 case in which “the early obtaining of a decree absolute was held to be an actionable loss” where the husband stopped his estranged wife from “sharing in her husband’s knighthood”.’ (That might have been interesting, if the reporter had bothered to cite said case. We couldn’t find it, but a discussion on BlueSky yielded the suggestion that it might be Griffiths v Dawson & Co [1993] 2 FLR 315, though that concerned an action over the divorced wife’s loss of her ex-husband’s pension, and said nothing about his knighthood.)
The Guardian reported Woman found guilty over deaths of four home-alone sons in fire (3 October 2024) about the case of Deveca Rose, who has been found guilty over the deaths of her four young sons in a fire at their home in London. The fire broke out on the evening of 16 December 2021 while Rose was out shopping for food. She had split up with her partner and suffered from mental health problems, and the family had been living in squalor, surrounded by rubbish and human excrement, the court heard. A local authority social worker had raised concerns about the family but, astonishingly, the case seems to have been closed some three months before the fire. The judge described it as a ‘tragic’ case. The Times (£) also reported it, under the somewhat reductive headline Boys died in fire after mother locked them in house to go shopping, as did many others. The Guardian had a related story about The missed chances that led to four small boys dying in a Sutton house fire, saying the case raised the ‘alarm over the present state of children’s services and prompted calls for the government and councils to boost investment into early intervention schemes’.
The Guardian reported that English council may ask parents of children taken into care to pay half of costs (6 October 2024) explaining that Derbyshire county council was so financially challenged that it was considering charging the parents of children taken into local authority care from £90 to £113, representing half of the weekly cost of looking after them. The Family Rights Group charity commented the move would exacerbate tensions between parents and social workers and undermine attempts to keep families together, potentially resulting in higher long-term costs.
The BBC reported that Teen who killed Holly Newton can be named – judge (9 October 2024). Reporting restrictions on the identity of the defendant, Logan MacPhail, were lifted by the trial judge, Hilliard J, following McPhail’s conviction for the murder of Holly Newton, 15, in Hexham, Northumberland, in January 2023. The BBC had applied for the reporting restriction, which was put in place because MacPhail was under 18, to be lifted. The judge said MacPhail had been convicted of “grave crimes” which were of local and national concern” but the “key factor” of the killer’s relationship with Holly could not be reported during the trial “lest it might identify him”. Holly’s parents said their daughter’s killing should be classed as a domestic violence offence rather than a knife crime.
The Law Society Gazette reported Judge stops mother’s court action after children refused to see her (16 October 2024) about the case of Mother v Father [2024] EWFC 252 (B) in which HHJ Suh in East London Family Court had written a letter directly to the children who refused to see their mother to say they would be protected from further immediate litigation. The judgment also began with a plain language summary. While acknowledging the mother’s genuine desire to play a part in the children’s lives, the judge said they ‘need a break’ from adults coming to check on them and from court applications.
The Independent had an article on Assisted dying: What is the current law and will it change? (17 October 2024) prompted by the introduction of a private member’s Bill by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. It is one of two such Bills currently awaiting debate. Leadbeater’s is called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Another, begun in the House of Lords, by former Labour Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, is called the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill. Both Bills are awaiting a second reading. MPs will hold their first debate on the Leadbeater’s Bill on 29 November. They will be given a free vote, meaning they can vote according to individual conscience. Falconer’s Bill in the Lords has yet to be given a date for its second reading, but the thinking is that its presence will lend support to Leadbetter’s if and when it reaches the upper chamber. For more information, see
- House of Commons Library research briefing: The law on assisted suicide
- Law and Lawyers: Assisted Dying Bills ~ Background information (plus some useful links)
- The Conversation: Assisted dying bill enters parliament — how likely is it to become law?
- Guardian: England and Wales assisted dying bill formally launched in House of Commons
One of the more significant aspects of the proposed legislation is the involvement of judges in approving final decisions on termination of life: this was the subject of a guest post on our blog by former President, Sir James Munby: Assisted dying: what role for the judge?
The Times (£) had a piece on Understanding trauma: why family lawyers and judges need training (17 October 2024) saying the adversarial court process can exacerbate existing trauma and family lawyers and judges needed to have a greater awareness of the impact of trauma on people to avoid unjust outcomes for victims of abuse. It refers to research by Canterbury Christ Church University and a ‘pioneering collaboration’ between Burgess Mee, a law firm that specialises in family law, and the Rosefield Divorce Consultancy, working with the Innisfree Therapy clinic to ‘train their solicitors and consultants to recognise the signs of trauma in clients and understand the effect that might have on them during the legal process’.
The Star in Sheffield reported that FGM survivor who nearly died after being cut by dirty razor says she is “free” after life-changing surgery (17 October 2024). It concerned Amani Abdallah, aged 24, a student nurse in Sheffield who decided to go public with her story to help others. She recalls being forcibly operated on as a child of 6 in Sudan, before coming to the UK at the age of 10, and only later discovering that various medical problems she was experiencing could be ascribed to the FGM (which she learned about in a biology class at school). Corrective surgery has empowered her to take back her life, she says, and is now happily settled with a partner and a baby (born by c-section).
The Guardian commented that All psychotherapists in England must be regulated, experts say, after abuse claims rise (19 October 2024). It said ministers faced calls for the urgent regulation of all psychotherapists and counsellors to protect vulnerable people, after lawyers reported a rise in lawsuits by patients for alleged harm done during therapy. It explained that ‘anyone without a qualification can call themselves a therapist, and that they can continue to practise after an episode of misconduct’. Statutory regulation of psychotherapy has been discussed on and off since the 1970s, it seems, and was included in a white paper published by the previous Labour government in 2007.
The BBC had a piece on how Adopting as a single mum in my 40s changed my life (20 October 2024) promoting the benefits of adoption at a time when it seems the number of cases has dropped. It reported that the National Adoption Service for Wales (NAS) said between 150 and 170 adopters were being approved a year since the Covid pandemic, compared with 250 to 300 before. The article features some happy outcomes, but there isn’t much substance in the way of analysis or on why the numbers have dropped.
The Guardian reported that Coventry student who hid baby in cereal box convicted of murder (24 October 2024), about Jia Xin Teo, 22, a student from Malaysia, who had concealed her pregnancy from friends and gave birth in a bathroom at her student halls. She then put the baby, who was alive when born, into a cereal box that she then put in a sealable plastic bag and placed into a suitcase. The baby was discovered two days later. Admitting what she had done, Teo said she had been scared lest her family and friends in Malaysia found out, and it affected her studies. She also claimed to have been hearing voices that told her to dispose of her child. The BBC reported on 28 October that the judge, Mrs Justice Tipples, had imposed Life sentence for killer who hid baby in suitcase, with a minimum term of 17 years.
Wales Online reported that Baby wrongly taken away from devastated parents because of a bruise that wasn’t their fault. (27 October 2024) This concerned the removal of a baby after the discovery, during a routine visit by a student health visitor, of a bruise on the child’s ribs which subsequent medical tests suggested had been caused by non-accidental injury. The baby was removed and placed with foster carers. But six months later the court later found the tests hadn’t been done propertly, the case was dropped and the baby was returned, to the mother’s great joy. The report mentions that District Judge Julian Hussell had initially approved an interim care order but ordered more tests, the results of which were indicative of mild von Willebrand disease, a condition which can make bruising or bleeding happen more easily. Publication of this story was made possible by the Reporting Pilot that operates in Cardiff Family Court, and is gradually being extended to other courts.
The Guardian reported that Divorce applications wrongly approved after computer error, high court hears (31 October 2024) explaining that 79 divorces were incorrectly approved after the applications had been submitted a day before the law allows. An online system failed to detect that the submissions came a year after marriage, when the law only permits divorces from a year and a day. The revelation isn’t itself a new one: in our May roundup we mentioned a story in Legal Futures about Lord Bellamy, a justice minister, making a statement about the matter to Parliament: at the time it was thought 67 cases had been affected. It now seems there may have been more. ‘Lawyers for the justice secretary have asked the court to rule that the divorces are “voidable” as opposed to “void”, meaning they would still stand, claiming that voiding the divorces would have “highly unfortunate and highly unwelcome” consequences for the couples concerned’. This appears to refer to an application listed as Lord Chancellor v 79 that came before the President, Sir Andrew McFarlane and Judge Lynn Roberts sitting in the Family Division on 30 October 2024. Judgment has been reserved.
BROADCAST & AUDIO COVERAGE
Joshua Rozenberg’s A Lawyer Talks podcast featured an episode Tracking the assets (23 October 2024) featuring an interview with David Lister, a senior partner at the law firm Vardags, about his success in achieving a financial settlement of £12.5 million for his client Abigail Laura Williams, 59, on her divorce from entrepreneur Andrew John Williams, aged 56, in the case of Williams v Williams [2024] EWFC 275. ‘It’s unusual for cases like this to be reported,’ says Joshua, (though perhaps less so than in the past, given the general tendency, even in high value financial dispute resolution cases, for greater transparency).
Law & Disorder is a new podcast which aims to ‘guide the intelligent layperson on the big legal issues of the day’. In Counsel Magazine (October 2024) the former High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn explains how he joined forces with former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Baroness Helena Kennedy KC to develop and present the weekly legal podcast. One of its first episodes discussed the prosecution and sentencing of rioters this summer, which was also the subject of a separate article by Sir Nicholas in the magazine (see Other Transparency etc News below).
The Martin Lewis Podcast had an episode on Marriage & Divorce (28 October 2024) discussing ‘Benefits of Marriage, Are prenups worth it? How to divorce cheaply, Splitting pensions, mortgages & more’. In short, are there tax and finance benefits to getting married, when it comes to money? The podcast features lawyers from England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland discussing, inter alia, the financial benefits and burdens connected with marriage or civil partnership and its breakup, including inheritance, pensions, prenups etc. (Bear in mind that much of the advice may be affected by the latest budget, which came out as we were going to press.)
LEGAL BLOGGING
In ‘Why would you give me the power to make decisions about your children?’ (29 October 2024) Julie Doughty reported on a recent case in Cardiff, where the judge adopted a problem-solving approach, in accordance with the Pathfinder principles, albeit outside the current Pathfinder pilot. This involves trying to identify at an early stage those cases where there are safeguarding or abuse issues and those that are suitable to be resolved through non-court dispute resolution. This fell into the latter category and the judge was initially hopeful she could persuade the parents to come to an agreement, but in the end she had to make an order pretty much micro-managing future contact.
See more about the Pathfinder in Re Child A & B in New Judgments, below.
RECENT CASE COMMENTARY
The Financial Remedies Journal (FRJ) had a piece entitled GH v GH – FDRs Are Not to Be Dispensed With (21 October 2024) about the case of GH v GH [2024] EWFC 272, whose neutral citation has since been changed to [2024] EWHC 2547 (Fam).* Emma Kelly of St Ives chambers in Birmingham says ‘If ever there were any doubts as to the importance of the FDR appointment and the parties’ attendance at one, then Mr Justice Peel has unequivocally put those doubts to rest’ in this case. ‘The court’s ongoing focus on assisting parties to resolve financial remedy proceedings in a timely and proportionate manner means that FDRs (including private FDRs) are, perhaps unsurprisingly, still receiving significant praise and judicial support.’
*Neutral citation numbers may sometimes need to be changed, e.g. if they have been issued in error for the wrong jurisdiction or level of judge in some courts. The National Archives tries to notify other publishers when this happens, but it is more tricky where articles have already been published. In this case the judgment was from a case heard in the Family Division of the High Court, but the original citation incorrectly ascribed it to the Family Court.
Becket Chambers had a piece entitled Practice Direction 12J, fact find hearings and child arrangements – E, F and G (Interim Child Arrangements) [2024] EWCA Civ 874 (30 September 2024). ‘This case highlights the sheer importance of Practice Direction 12J and the need for it to be applied in every hearing where domestic abuse is raised’. It concerns a recent appeal brought by the mother on 2 grounds; the first in respect of a child arrangements order made for unsupervised contact and the second regarding an adjournment due to a Qualified Legal Representative (‘QLR’) not being available for the fact find hearing. This article (by barrister Cara Radford) focuses on the first ground in respect of the child arrangements order. An article by another member of the chambers (Ronald Edgington) deals with the second aspect: “How long should the court wait to appoint a qualified legal representative?” We summarised the judgment in our Roundup on 3 September.
NEW JUDGMENTS OF INTEREST
AA v BB [2024] EWHC 2233 (Fam)
An unusual feature of this published judgment from Sir Jonathan Cohen was that the name of the judge at Luton Family Court did not appear anywhere. This aroused interest, especially because the High Court judgment was critical of the Family Court judge having failed to follow the Practice Direction on domestic abuse cases and having accused the mother to trying to ‘hold the court to ransom’.
We were able to bring this question to the attention of Sir Jonathan, who agreed that the Family Court judge would normally be identified and arranged for the published judgment to be amended. The version now on TNA incudes the name of the judge, HHJ Kushner.
Re H (Uncertain perpetrator) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261
This was an appeal from a fact-finding hearing at Chelmsford Family Court where the Judge, HHJ Shanks, had concluded that a child subject to care proceedings had been injured by either her mother or by her mother’s partner. Considering voluminous evidence, the judge had been able to exclude other family members from the ‘pool’ of potential perpetrators but could not make findings as to whether the injuries had been inflicted by the mother or by her partner. The mother unsuccessfully appealed against being included in the pool.
There’s a comprehensive summary of Sir Peter Jackson’s judgment at Local Government Lawyer.
Re R & C (Adoption or Fostering) [2024] EWCA Civ 1302
The vexed question of contact and adoption was addressed in this appeal from HHJ Wicks at Northampton Family Court. Placement orders for two small children had been sought by the local authority but refused by the judge mainly because of the children’s needs for ongoing contact with two older siblings. Although the local authority said its care plan included sibling contact, the judge was not reassured. In the Court of Appeal, Baker LJ took the opportunity to discuss at some length the modern approach to more open adoption. Although the local authority’s appeal succeeded, the Court of Appeal made orders for post-adoption contact under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, s 26.
We’d recommend anyone working in or interested in adoption to read the judgment in full.
Re T & Anor (Appeal: Fair Hearings: Delegation of Judicial Functions) [2024] EWHC 2236 (Fam)
Ms Justice Henke describes this as a highly contentious case, where a mother was appealing against a judgment at Canterbury Family Court where she hadn’t been able to fully challenge evidence presented by the children’s father that unsupervised contact would no longer pose a risk of harm to them. The judgment contains a schedule of 21 serious abuse allegations that were found to have been proved by a judge in an earlier hearing. An interesting feature of the case is that the judge, HHJ Davies, had delegated the decision about moving from supervised to unsupervised contact to an independent social worker, who didn’t have access to the full evidence. It appears that, in any event, the ISW did not feel equipped to take on that role. Henke J did not agree that the judge should have passed on that function and also observed that she had failed to follow paragraph 35 of Practice Direction 12J, that: ‘When deciding the issue of child arrangements the court should ensure that any order for contact will not expose the child to an unmanageable risk of harm and will be in the best interests of the child.’
Local Authority v A Mother [2024] EWHC 2680 (Fam)
This is a rare type of declaration by the High Court that a father of a baby should not be notified that the baby is to be placed for adoption, nor should the extended family be approached with a view to a kinship placement. The reason for the local authority application for this declaration was the mother’s evidence that the circumstances of the birth (after a concealed pregnancy) would bring shame on her and place her and the baby at serious risk of ‘honour-based’ violence. The father (who has a wife and family in Pakistan) had been present at the birth and had agreed to the mother relinquishing the baby for adoption but couldn’t subsequently be contacted and the mother was refusing to hand over contact details. The baby had been placed with foster-to-adopt applicants. The Cafcass guardian argued that more efforts should be made to obtain the father’s details from the mother, but the judge, HHJ Parker concluded that, on balance, this would be an exercise in futility and made the declaration sought.
Re Child A and B [2024] EWFC 284 (B)
The Pathfinder pilot in private law which began in North Wales and Dorset was extended in April 2024 to Birmingham and Southeast Wales. The lead judge in Southeast Wales is HHJ Jayne Scannell who published this judgment on TNA and asked that it be circulated to local practitioners. This was an appeal from the magistrates in Newport where the Pathfinder had not been applied effectively and what had begun as a fairly narrow issue about which school the children would attend expanded into a ‘lives with’ application. Although HHJ Scannell explains that the practice points raised were about the Pathfinder in that area, we think the judgment could be helpful reading in all four Pathfinder areas.
See further on the use of the Pathfinder principles in Legal Blogging, above.
Re Final Hearing, Application for relocation to Poland [2024] EWFC 283 (B)
An unusual case to find on TNA, as this was a judgment from a deputy district judge, DDJ Nahal-Macdonald, and fairly unremarkable. However, there’d been a discussion in court about publication at all. The child was seven years old and his mother was applying to relocate to Poland but his father objected. The judge concluded that the main factors in favouring the mother’s application were the benefits to the child of the prospect of high-quality bilingual education, better quality of life and lower cost of living, and a close maternal family network. A contact plan had been proposed.
It’s not clear who raised the question of publication but the mother supported this, as it would be in the public interest and might provide analysis of the law for parties in a similar predicament in the future.
Re TQC (Domestic Abuse: Findings) [2024] EWFC 279 (B)
This was a fact-finding hearing regarding applications for child arrangements orders about three young children. A rule 16.4 guardian had been appointed. HHJ Middleton-Roy made findings of serious sexual, physical and emotional abuse against the father. We’re including this judgment as we were taken aback to read in the final paragraph that the case was being listed for a dispute resolution appointment. However we understand that this is the terminology used in the Practice Direction for a directions hearing after fact-finding, before the welfare hearing is listed, as clearly this was not a case where dispute resolution was appropriate.
OTHER TRANSPARENCY etc NEWS
CAFCASS published a new domestic abuse policy on 9 October 2024, about how they will make recommendations to court where domestic abuse is an issue. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism had a piece: Cafcass issues new rules to protect abuse victims in family court system.
We had a post here: Cafcass new domestic abuse policy – an explainer.
Resolution published its report on Domestic abuse in financial remedy proceedings (October 2024). Based on research by its Economic Abuse Working Party, it found that ‘80% of family justice professionals believe domestic abuse and specifically economic abuse is not sufficiently taken into account in financial remedy proceedings; 85% said it is not sufficiently taken into account in Schedule 1 (awards for parents of children) and 87% in cases where the separating couple have cohabited but not been married’. The report was the subject of a handy explainer in the Financial Remedies Journal: Resolution’s Report on Domestic Abuse in Financial Remedy Proceedings: An Overview of the Key Findings and Recommendations. Joshua Rozenberg also commented in the Law Society Gazette: Tackling economic abuse in family disputes, as did The Times (£): Calls to take abuse into account for divorce financial settlement
The Guardian reported that Family court judges use victim-blaming language in domestic abuse cases, finds AI project (9 October 2024). A project called herEthical AI had trained computers to identify attitudes among judges that appeared to use victim-blaming and gender-biased language towards domestic abuse survivors. The idea for the project originated with a campaign called Breaking Bias run by Right to Equality, founded by barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who said the findings ‘underscored the need for greater training on domestic abuse in family court proceedings to help rebuild low levels of public trust in the fairness of the judicial process’.
The Judiciary website published a speech by Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’, marking One Hundred Years since R v Sussex Justices, Ex p McCarthy [1923] EWHC KB 1, [1924] 1 KB 256, one of the classic cases on open justice. Cobb J was giving the Conkerton Memorial Lecture, organised by Liverpool Law Society’s Education & Charities Committee in Liverpool on 10 October 2024. He said:
‘ Over the years, the phrase (i.e. ‘justice must be seen to be done’) has come to embody much more than alleged procedural impropriety, judicial bias or improper influence, or the appearance of bias. The phrase now encompasses, and perhaps is most strongly associated with, openness and transparency in the due administration of justice, tying in directly with the citizen’s right to a ‘fair and public hearing’ which is enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Counsel Magazine published an article entitled Reading the Riot Act by former High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn (October 2024) arguing that more public information should have been put out concerning the charges and sentences offenders could have faced, following the initial riots in early August. He was responding to comments by a Conservative politician suggesting that the prosecution under conservative legislation (s 19 of the Public Order Act 1986) of people for social media posts inciting violence against minority groups was in effect a brutal suppression of free speech by the new government. Sir Nicholas observed that since it would not be appropriate either for the government or serving judges to provide information concerning the crimes offenders might be charged with and what sentences they might face if found guilty, it was left to retired judges like himself to do so. (As noted above, the matter was also discussed by Sir Nicholas in the Law and Disorder podcast.)
Local Government Laywer reported that Law Commission launches consultation on “out of date” disabled children’s social care law (8 October 2024), saying the law was complicated and potentially unfair, and proposing a new framework for the care of disabled children. The Law Commission consultation paper is here.
The Independent reported that Sexual abuse victims claim free court transcript scheme was ‘hidden’ from them for months (13 October 2024). This referred to the year-long pilot scheme begun in May 2024 whereby victims of sexual violence or rape could obtain judges’ sentencing remarks made in court if their perpetrator was found guilty. It appears that the scheme has not been widely publicised or supported. The scheme itself is here: Apply for a transcript of a judge’s sentencing remarks.
The Department for Education announced Kinship care: framework for local authorities (11 October 2024) for local authorities and their staff. It sets out: how local authorities should support children in kinship care and kinship carers, and what are the duties and expectations on local authorities in relation to kinship families.
The Law Society Gazette reported that Language services procurement sparks fresh court interpreting row (23 October 2024) saying ‘the House of Lords will today begin hearing evidence on court interpreting services amid fresh anger within the interpreting community over a new government tender for language services contracts. On the same date the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI) submitted written evidence to the inquiry being conducted by the Public Services Committee into Interpreting and translation services in the courts. Urgents recommendations have also been made by a working group calling itself Professional Interpreters for Justice, under the title Working together recommendations for public sector commissioning. Problems with the existing outsourcing services were also covered by Private Eye in a piece entitled ‘Loss in translation’ (issue No 1634, 11 to 24 October 2024) reporting that two out of the three agencies currently contracted are no longer in business, and the third (Thebigword) has been experiencing problems with its booking app. The Eye adds that justice minister Heidi Alexander has confirmed that a tender notice will be published soon, once again seeking outsourced providers, apparently without waiting for the results of the parliamentary inquiry.
Local Government Lawyer reported that Domestic abuse victims being let down by councils using “outdated” and “too narrow” definition of abuse, Ombudsman warns (14 October 2024). It said the Ombudsman had issued a new good practice guide and was urging councils to make sure they were looking at people’s cases through the lens of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, saying it had seen cases where ‘councils have failed to recognise the abuse people have suffered because it was not physical’.
The Financial Remedies Journal (FRJ) published an interesting article, No Special Favours: Litigants in Person and the Financial Remedies Court (23 October 2024) discussing recent cases in which the question had arisen as to whether any special allowance should be made for self-represented parties in terms of compliance with court procedure rules. The authors suggest that, from most such cases, ‘the clear message is that when it comes to compliance with procedural rules and practice directions, LIPs should be treated the same as represented parties’. In other words, don’t expect any favours. Moreover, there is no discernible difference between the approach of the Family Division and that of the King’s Bench or Chancery Divisions of the High Court, at least in so far as the litigation is being conducted on an adversarial basis. Some latitude might be allowed where the court is exercising a quasi-inquisitorial jurisdiction, it is suggested.
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (NFJO) published Improving lives – the power of better data in the family justice system (29 October 2024). ‘Data is critical to understanding families’ experiences of the family justice system, and outcomes, as well as helping to drive system Improvements’, it says. ‘This paper provides a brief overview of some current challenges before highlighting potential opportunities for improvement’. There is a handy summary on Local Government Lawyer: Family justice system “lags far behind” other public services in terms of data availability and quality, Nuffield FJO warns. It says the briefing paper was drafted in response to the independent family justice data mapping exercise by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), published in July 2024 (which we covered in our August roundup).
The Law Commission has extended the closing date for its Contempt of Court consultation. In light of the breadth of issues and interest, and the engagement received so far, the consultation will now close on 29 November 2024. We are submitting written evidence on certain aspects consultation and have published a number of posts on the subject:
The National Audit Office (NAO) published a Value for money report on Support for children and young people with special educational needs (24 Oct 2024). It pointed out that around 1.9 million children and young people aged 0 to 25 years in England (11%) were identified as having special educational needs (SEN) in January 2024, with 1.7 million at school. Local authorities, working with national and local bodies, have a statutory responsibility to ensure they receive the support they need. Health services have a responsibility to provide, when clinically required, medical assessments, routine health checks, and healthcare. The report assesses how well the current system is delivering those services.
The Law Society Gazette reported on how Judge’s 17-month delay in handing down judgment leads to formal advice for misconduct (25 October 2024). This concerned a tribunal judge, Lynn Griffin, who explained that she had a lot of important extra roles within the judiciary, around which she had struggled to complete the judgment. But the JCIO (Judicial Conduct Investigations Office) said that did not excuse the length of the delay. It pointed out that the ‘general threshold for when the time taken to complete a judgment may raise a question of misconduct is that the period since the conclusion of the hearing or trial exceeds three months’. Apparently three other judges have been issued with formal advice this year over judgment hand-down delays of between 15 and 18 months.
The Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law published an academic article, Parenthood and parental responsibility: legal messaging and the power of law (17 October 2024) in which Craig Lind of the University of Sussex school of law reflects on the ‘inexorable trend, in English law, towards a presumption in favour of shared involvement in the care of children when parents separate (perhaps better classified as a presumption in favour of contact between children and the non-resident parent)’.
The Judiciary website announced two Extensions to family court transparency pilots (30 October 2024). The main one was the extension of the Family Court Reporting Pilot to include public and private law cases before magistrates in all 19 current pilot areas from Monday 4 November 2024. The second was to add the Royal Courts of Justice to the financial remedies proceedings reporting pilot from Monday 11 November. Currently it has been running at the Central Family Court, Birmingham and Leeds since 29 January 2024.
FAMILY LAW IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Afghanistan
The New Yorker provides an eye-witness account of Sharia justice (including family law) as currently administered in Afghanistan in a video entitled Swift Justice: A Taliban Courtroom in Session. This was transparency from an unexpected quarter, it has to be said, though it would be hard to characterise it as open justice. There are subtitles to help the viewer follow the proceedings, which appear to be quite informal, in which a group of bearded elders decide most matters without much deliberation, pretty much on the spot. The family law case involves a recently widowed woman who refuses to be married off to her brother in law, according to custom, and is eventually (after being allowed to speak in court from behind her veil) allowed to go back to live with her father instead. The outcome is duly recorded in writing and stamped. Between cases, a judge speaks to camera, explaining the Sharia approach.
Since then, The Guardian has reported that Taliban to be taken to international court over gender discrimination (26 September 2024) saying Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands have commenced proceedings under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was adopted by the general assembly in 1979 and brought into force in 1981. Afghanistan ratified the convention in 2003. Earlier this year, the Taliban published a new set of vice and virtue laws that said women must not leave the house without being fully covered and could not sing or raise their voices in public. The New Yorker video reinforces the state of servitude in which women are kept under the Taliban’s extreme version of Sharia law.
Ireland
The Irish Examiner reported Mother forced daughter to write fabricated sexual allegations against father in diary, court told (7 October 2024) about a case in which a social care worker from Tusla (the Irish name for the Child and Family Agency) had told the judge in a family court that the daughter of an estranged couple involved in a dispute over her custody (as it is still described in Ireland) had admitted to garda specialist interviewers in July that she had fabricated the sex abuse allegations against her father at the behest of her mother. Judge Alec Gabbett described the mother’s action as intentional emotional abuse and said that he was making the custody order in favour of the father after hearing the new Tusla evidence.
Italy
L’Unione Sarda reported that where, After 18 Years, Man Discovers Wife Was Born a Man, Court Denies Marriage Annulment. This concerned a case in which the husband sought an annulment after discovering that, prior to their marriage in 2003, his wife had been a man, having had a gender change in 1992. Prior to their breakup, the couple had attempted to adopt a child, the wife allegedly saying that she could not have children owing to an illness which had necessitated removal of her uterus. The husband said he had only discovered the truth in 2021 when the couple began to separate. The woman told a completely different story, according to which her husband was informed well before the wedding of the sex change that had occurred years before. The court in Livorno refused an annulment under article 122 of the civil code, which concerns cases in which the marriage bond can be dissolved “through violence or error”, saying lack of knowledge of the spouse’s original sex ‘does not correspond to an error regarding the identity or qualities of the person’. But they could just divorce like everyone else.
Here endeth the roundup.
But finally…
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.