*/
Family
The President of the Family Division of the High Court has renewed his call for greater transparency in the family courts, after rejecting a local authority’s application for a reporting restriction order.
In a case that raised questions about the public “right to know” and how courts should adapt to the realities of social media, Sir James Munby refused to “gag” a father so that “what from the local authority’s perspective are his unpalatable views are less likely to see the light of day”.
In Re J (A Child), Staffordshire County Council applied for an injunction against a father whose child had been removed by Social Services against his will. The father had posted material about the social workers involved on the internet, including names, photographs and footage of the moment when the child was taken away.
Sir James refused to grant an injunction “because of the manner or style in which the material is being presented on the internet, nor to spare the blushes of those being attacked, however abusive and unjustified those attacks may be.”
The only justification would be to protect J’s privacy and anonymity, said Sir James, but the risk of that happening through the naming of the local authority or social workers was “fanciful”.
Sir James, who became President of the Family Division in January, issued draft practice guidance in July on the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection. He clarified that in this case, “the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling.”
Also tasked with reducing delays, he is bringing in reforms that create a single family court, new rules restricting expert evidence and a 26-week time limit for care proceedings. “The current delays are scandalous and unacceptable,” said Sir James in an interview for Counsel (see p 14). “These are things that are going to happen,” and family justice professionals must “get on board and understand that,” he stated.
In a case that raised questions about the public “right to know” and how courts should adapt to the realities of social media, Sir James Munby refused to “gag” a father so that “what from the local authority’s perspective are his unpalatable views are less likely to see the light of day”.
In Re J (A Child), Staffordshire County Council applied for an injunction against a father whose child had been removed by Social Services against his will. The father had posted material about the social workers involved on the internet, including names, photographs and footage of the moment when the child was taken away.
Sir James refused to grant an injunction “because of the manner or style in which the material is being presented on the internet, nor to spare the blushes of those being attacked, however abusive and unjustified those attacks may be.”
The only justification would be to protect J’s privacy and anonymity, said Sir James, but the risk of that happening through the naming of the local authority or social workers was “fanciful”.
Sir James, who became President of the Family Division in January, issued draft practice guidance in July on the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection. He clarified that in this case, “the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling.”
Also tasked with reducing delays, he is bringing in reforms that create a single family court, new rules restricting expert evidence and a 26-week time limit for care proceedings. “The current delays are scandalous and unacceptable,” said Sir James in an interview for Counsel (see p 14). “These are things that are going to happen,” and family justice professionals must “get on board and understand that,” he stated.
Family
The President of the Family Division of the High Court has renewed his call for greater transparency in the family courts, after rejecting a local authority’s application for a reporting restriction order.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt