header-logo header-logo

Protecting domestic abuse victims

10 January 2017
Issue: 7729 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Emergency review set up to prevent perpretrators cross-examining victims in family court

Primary legislation could be introduced with “urgency” to ban alleged domestic abuse perpetrators from cross-examining their victims in the family courts.

Justice Secretary Liz Truss last week announced she was setting up an emergency review to find the quickest way to bring the family courts into line with the criminal courts, where such cross-examinations have been stopped. According to research by Women’s Aid, a quarter of domestic violence victims who appear in the family courts have been cross-examined by their abusive former partners.

Justice minister Oliver Heald told MPs this week that primary legislation would be required, and that a consultation with survivors’ groups may not be necessary because the proposed ban is straightforward. The move by ministers follows calls by Sir James Munby, England and Wales’ most senior family judge, for urgent reform of the way in which vulnerable people give evidence in family proceedings.

Family law solicitor David Burrows said “the unmet needs of vulnerable individuals in family proceedings go much wider than” alleged abusers cross-examining abused parties and witnesses.

He highlighted that a working group set up by Sir James produced draft rules on vulnerable witnesses in mid-2015. “The draft took many leads from criminal proceedings under Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (special measures to help children and vulnerable witnesses),” he said.

“The draft covers children and vulnerable individuals. It includes—but this is only one element—provision for those who are subjected to further abuse by being cross-examined in person by their alleged abuser. Victims include one of a former couple, a child who gives evidence proceedings, or any other witness in family proceedings.

“The Ministry of Justice is aware that the rules amendments have resources implications, but so too have the 1999 adjustments in criminal proceedings. In family proceedings, legal aid could be used in European Convention 1950 exceptional case funding for vulnerable parties and children, and many of the criminal proceedings measures are already available, but not used, in family proceedings, as Lady Hale has pointed out in Re A (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure) [2012] UKSC 60.” 

Issue: 7729 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll