header-logo header-logo

A gap in the ring fence?

10 January 2008 / Susan Edwards
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Does automatic disclosure mean no more refuge in self-incrimination privilege? Susan Edwards investigates

The Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/1976) (FPR)—unlike the former Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1247)— permit disclosure, to police and prosecutors investigating and initiating criminal proceedings, of documents, admissions and inculpatory statements made by parties in care proceedings. This includes the judge’s finding of fact in such proceedings without application to the court.

 

While it may be argued that these changes are merely procedural and have not fundamentally altered any principle of evidence or of justice, courts will now be presented with an increasing number of applications by prosecutors to admit in evidence information and admissions made in care proceedings into criminal proceedings. There is an urgent and pressing need for the jurisprudence on exclusionary discretion in the criminal courts to develop and provide some certainty.

 

SELF INCRIMINATION

In the course of a criminal investigation, and at trial, the suspect/defendant has

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

NLJ Career Profile: Francis Ho, City of London Law Society

Francis Ho, Charles Russell Speechlys partner, was recently appointed chair of the Construction Law Committee of the City of London Law Society. He discusses the challenges of learning to lead, the importance of professional ethics, and the power of the written word, withNLJ

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
back-to-top-scroll