header-logo header-logo

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

Protecting domestic abuse victims

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—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll