A further excellent video from the Sound Off For Justice campaign. It’s not just access to justice in family cases that will be decimated, as this clip of a sexual harassment related unfair dismissal demonstrates.
A further excellent video from the Sound Off For Justice campaign. It’s not just access to justice in family cases that will be decimated, as this clip of a sexual harassment related unfair dismissal demonstrates.
The Justice Select Committee today published it’s report on the Government’s proposed reforms of legal aid. I am reliably informed that family justice features heavily in the report, which adopts much of what the FLBA has had to say on the matter about the potential adverse impact of the proposals on children, and the inapposite nature of an eligibility test based solely on physical violence. I have not had an opportunity to read the report, but you can find it here and you can read the Guardian’s piece on it here.
A combination of laziness and kindness lead me to spare you a picture of the ubiquitous, and irritatingly always-beaming-Ken-Clarke. I can see him grinning endearingly whenever I close my eyes to lay down to sleep. Unfortunately whilst the dulcet tones of Mr Clarke may have an unintended if mild soporific effect, this phenomenon rather less so.
Tomorrow will see the publication of the Family Justice Review Interim Report, so watch this space and this one.
Will post commentary if I can, but possibly will be tied up.
I write this on the train to the FLBA conference in Leeds. I have typed and lost it several times and have resolved to post it before it once again disappears into the ether. You will therefore have to excuse any jerkiness, repetition or overlong sentences. I wanted to post and so I post in the knowledge it is imperfect but heartfelt.
Pa 4.101 of the Green Paper reads as follows:
In the Government’s view, the issues at stake in these cases are extremely important, and the very emotional nature of the subject matter, and the personal circumstances of the individuals involved, will often make it difficult for them to present their own case. We recognise that families must have a practical means of taking part in proceedings brought by public authorities that affect the integrity of the family unit. We do not consider that there are viable alternatives to legal aid. We therefore consider that legal aid funding is justified.
This for me is significant. This section of the text sets out the rationale for continuing legal aid in public law children cases, but what I am struck by is that the thrust of this paragraph is applicable to private law cases as much as it is to public law cases. The emotional nature of the subject matter, the personal circumstances of the individuals involved in private law cases often make it difficult for parents to present their own case in any dispute where there is a risk that they will lose contact with their children or that they will be taken from their care. This is no less so in private law disputes where cases frequently involve domestic violence, mental health, substance abuse, poverty and intergenerational problems with parenting and relationships – and where the practical consequences are as serious for some parents and children even if the potential legal consequences are less so (when compared with adoption orders) – a child’s relationship with one parent can be regulated by the court, but it is significant that it can be effectively destroyed or terminated at the will of one parent if there is not access to private law proceedings, whereas a child’s relationship with one or both parents may be legally and effectively terminated only as a consequence of public law proceedings. The Green Paper purports to aim to redefine the scope of legal aid so as to continue to protect the vulnerable, but in respect of parents in private law proceedings I think it signally fails. Continue Reading…