Justice Matters

Emily Henderson looks at the cross-examining of vulnerable witnesses and asks whether this supposed jewel in the adversarial crown is being successfully reformed by the courts.  

Conventionally, cross-examination is regarded as the jewel in the adversarial crown. However, 30 years of empirical research has shown it to be highly unreliable as a means of investigating the evidence of vulnerable people in particular. 

Regaining the art of co-operation: Andrew Ritchie QC on the case for arbitration for personal injury and clinical negligence claims.  

Many shipping, building and commercial disputes are resolved by arbitration. So why is arbitration not used to resolve personal injury and clinical negligence claims? 

Of politics, schoolmasters and judges: Paul Marshall reflects upon the recent Court of Appeal decision in Denton v T H White and the fallout from the decision in Mitchell v News Group.  

If one settling a pillow by her head,  Should say, “That is not what I meant at all  That is not it, at all”  

T S Eliot, Prufrock 

The Independent Parliamentarians’ Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court reported in June. Lord Carlile, who chaired the inquiry, explains its findings to Counsel.  

June 2014 saw the publication of a far reaching All Party Parliamentarians’ report on Youth Justice. 

Nathalie Lieven QC explains the Council of the Inns of Court’s first six funding scheme.  

As readers will know this is a very hard time for chambers that rely on publicly funded work, particularly those doing crime. One of the worst consequences of the extreme financial pressure that many chambers find themselves under has been a dramatic fall in the number of pupillages available, again particularly in criminal sets reliant on public funding. Although the reduction in pupillages is wholly understandable, it makes even worse the disparity between the number of people who complete their academic training but are unable to get a pupillage, and must place in jeopardy the future of the criminal Bar. 

Chris McWatters weighs up the pros and cons of a Law Commission proposal to make prenuptial agreements binding in court.  

Most fiancés would find the prospect of making a prenuptial agreement before their big day in church about as much in the joyful spirit of things as cold wet weather on the wedding morning. How can you make a holy vow to remain together for eternity, while at the same time calculating how the marital spoils should be divided if you separate? 

Sir Hugh Bennett assesses the progress of the family law finance arbitration scheme.  

In 2012, the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA), a company limited by guarantee, was set up with a board of directors chaired by former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton. It is responsible for the implementation and administration of the family law finance arbitration scheme. The qualified arbitrators, now numbering 130 with more to come, have all been trained in arbitral techniques and have a good working knowledge of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1986). Each must become a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is subject to its disciplinary code. Solicitors, barristers, QCs and retired judges, all of whom are, or were, full-time practicing family lawyers, comprise the corps of arbitrators under the scheme. They are therefore real specialists in the field of family finance law. 

Tom Cockroft explores the need for a new offence of failure to prevent fraud.  

“A British bank is run with precision/ A British home requires nothing less/ Tradition, discipline, and rules must be the tools/ Without them – disorder! Chaos! Moral disintegration!/In short, we have a ghastly mess!” 

(“The Life I Lead”, Mary Poppins) 

Jalil Asif QC explains how to manage your digital estate after death.  

Death and taxes have been said to be the constants in life. Barristers are always receiving offers of free tax advice so, for a change, this article is about death and its consequences. 

Jonathan Barnes examines the High Court’s effective monopoly on hearing defamation cases, and against a background of calls for county courts to get involved too asks, WHY NOT?  

On October 2011 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the then Draft Defamation Bill considered at paragraph 87 of its First Report that the availability of county courts to hear defamation cases, particularly outside London, should increase accessibility for ordinary citizens and would, in many cases, reduce costs as well. The Committee suggested that the Ministry of Justice should implement a pilot scheme to determine how this proposal might work in practice.