Signpost not Guided Tour

Listen chaps, if you want in depth analysis and full on witty commentary head over to Suesspicious Minds. He’s banging em out so fast after they appear on Bailli that I’ve lost the will to live, fearful that whatever I start will have been done better and faster by the Suessmeister. Bless him.

Here are some things I’ve seen, considered blogging about, and gone “nah. other priorities”…

Litigant in person gets punchy. I suppose it was only a matter of time. According to reports the President dealt with the the contempt of court issue on Weds, but nothing on Bailli yet.

The Case of Re F – another adoption case. This time placement order was not appropriate but really on the basis that it was not yet clear that adoption was the right outcome for the child (child needed therapy first). In fact an application of existing authority.

Family law related autocorrect amusement via Huffington Post here.

Decode your legal 500 entry here. I think mine decodes as “send her all the messy ones”.

Oh. And this. Compare. And Contrast….I say it again: Compare… And Contrast… This Daily Mail article with this case on bailli (In the Matter of W and In the Matter of H). YES. They really are the same case. Whilst the putting of a slant on a case is entirely unsurprising, however this particular assertion :

[The President] also warned that in future, there would be ‘consequences’ for social workers, suggesting that they could be jailed for contempt if they fail to comply with court orders – an offence that carries a sentence of up to two years.

Of course, if you read paragraphs 52-55 of the judgment (or any other bit of it for that matter) there is absolutely no reference to committal for contempt of court as a response to a failure to comply with a case management order. This is highly misleading representation of implications of this judgment. Even if the single reference to “consequences” in the judgment were a reference to contempt of court this case is not about consequences for social workers who remove children in circumstances where there are irregularities in the removal (as the headline suggests), but rather about ensuring cases are conducted fairly and thoroughly after children have been removed (or if not after, removal is a distinct issue). But you don’t want to hear me rant about that. Go read it.

And weep.

Also, rather late I confess, Lord Neuberger’s recent lecture “Justice in an Age of Austerity” (h/t to @joshuarozenberg)

Oh. And I couldn’t let this post pass without observing that someone has stolen my book title. And unfortunately that someone is a bunch of senior judges. Cheeky mares. Oh well… Shall I sue? 😉  Nah. I’ll just take the opportunity to self-promote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *