header-logo header-logo

Justice calls for clarity

15 March 2012
Issue: 7505 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Senior judge calls for “quick win” for family justice reform

Simplified, “plain language” steps for the appointment of expert witnesses in family cases should be introduced, the senior judge in charge of reviewing family justice has said.

Mr Justice Ryder identified this as a “quick win”—one of “those changes which we all agree should be made without delay and where changes in legislation may not be necessary”.

“I am working closely with government lawyers and the Family Procedure Rule Committee to identify rules and/or practice direction changes to give more clarity about when it is appropriate to appoint an expert and to ensure that the work commissioned from experts is necessary and relevant to the issues to be decided by the court,” he says, in his third update on his Family Justice Modernisation Programme.

Ryder J says there will be greater continuity of case management by judges and case managers under new docketing guidance agreed with the Judicial Executive Board. There is already an expectation that judges and legal advisers should not be away from their court for more than a month at a time, he says.

The judge reports that the National Family Justice Board is due to launch next month, and discussion is ongoing over the contributions required of judges to local boards.

A national pilot on data reporting for judges will also begin next month. Leadership judges will be given “reliable data from court hearings and about the volume and type of work that takes place in the family courts”, allowing them “to improve performance and to contribute to effective business plans for the best use of our resources”. 

Ryder J says he expects the government to create a statutory family court within the next year, and agreement has been reached over the division of work between the High Court and the family court.

He is due to announce his recommendations for reform by 31 July 2012, having first agreed them with the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the Family Justice Council, leadership judges, the Judicial Executive Board and the HMCTS board.

Issue: 7505 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll