I think I’m missing something. I’ve read a couple of pieces online and in the papers about the complaint by Reprieve that Sir Peter Gibson should recuse himself from the torture inquiry on the basis that his former involvement in the oversight of the intelligence services as Intelligence Services Commissioner puts him in a conflicted position. And I’ve read extracts of the Treasury Solicitor’s response that are set out in today’s Guardian. It seems clear enough to me – there’s an appearance of bias. Perhaps it would be clearer if I read the whole letter (I can’t find it reproduced anywhere on the web) but I’m struggling to understand the merit in the government pointing out the lack of a legal duty to satisfy tests of impartiality and independence (although I suspect in fairness they were doing this in response to specific questions posed in Reprieve’s letter). Regardless of what prompted that assertion, it rather begs the question: if the inquiry is neither impartial nor independent what exactly is its purpose?
The Guardian today reports that the Supreme Court would have to close if it were to face a 40% cut in spending. The Chief Executive said yesterday on the first anniversary of the court: ‘As 62% of our costs are genuinely fixed, a 40% cut causes us some problems. We couldn’t actually deal with any casework, in fact, with a 40% cut.’ That’s an alarmingly gentle way to express the significance of a court that can’t deal with any cases. Yes, definitely ‘some problems’ ahead…I wonder if judicial salaries and pensions are considered to fall within the ‘genuinely fixed’ category?
Posted in stuff | Leave a Comment »
Can I recommend you read this blog post from Heather Brooke about court secrecy. Not about family proceedings, but interesting and thought provoking nonetheless…
And also interesting is her take on The Times paywall, which I have yet to fully grapple with, although I am going to have to do so in the next 29 days and counting.
Posted in stuff | Leave a Comment »
Further to my previous post, I am en route back to the sticks having thrown my two penn’orth in the general direction of the Family Justice Review Panel (I got ‘em, right between the eyes). I was somewhat surprised to find that the session was ‘private’ (and apparently not recorded), and so I will not report it’s contents here until clarification on that is received (jokes about the transparency of the family justice system on a postcard please). BUT: in light of this evidence session, can I urge everybody to consider with renewed vigour to PLEASE respond to the review? It is more important and more serious than you may imagine. We 8 lawyers were asked to contribute orally in an hour and a half and, predictably enough for a room full of lawyers with a short time estimate, were falling over each other to respond to the serious points raised – we could not hope to address the issues fully in that format and the written representations will be crucial. Over the next little while I will be posting some blog posts to focus minds on issues which the Review are likely to address. No doubt the FLBA and other associations will be consulting more widely over the summer on the matters discussed today (as far as permitted) in advance of presenting their written representations.
.
Apologies for the slightly ridiculous cloak and dagger approach. But know this: there are no givens. Change is a comin’.
Posted in stuff | Tagged family law, family justice system, reform | Leave a Comment »
On Wednesday the Family Justice Review will be taking evidence from the Family Law Bar Association, Association of Lawyers for Children, Law Society and Resolution. I will be hotfooting it from Swansea to Paddington in order to attend, along with Stephen Cobb QC, on behalf of the FLBA. It promises to be an interesting session, notwithstanding that, after some reflection, I have decided not to wear my Wonder Woman outfit.
.
If you would like to participate in the Review the call for written evidence is open until September. All the blurb along with a long list of questions to get you thinking are available here. I sense this review may well redefine the way we do ‘Family Justice’ in the years ahead.
Posted in stuff | Tagged family justice system, reform | 1 Comment »
Damn, I’ve just had to swallow my principles and subscribe to The Times online. Really needed to see something and couldn’t get to it without.
Your agent will report from the inside in due course…
Posted in stuff | 1 Comment »
Tags
-
Recent Comments
Secrecy « Pink… on Sign of the Times Secrecy « Pink… on Sign of The Times Margaret Wilde on Court of Protection Secrecy Ch… 
Recent Court of Appeal Decisions (Civil Division)- TM (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916 (30 July 2010)
- Sheffield City Council v Wall (Personal Representatives of) & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 922 (30 July 2010)
- ZA (Nigeria) & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 926 (30 July 2010)
Archives
