Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles
Authors

Disclosure and the interface between criminal and family law

Sep 29, 2018, 18:38 PM
Slug : Waldman-FebFLJ2013
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 24, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101465

Elissa da Costa-Waldman

Barrister:

This article is an analysis of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Crown Prosecution Service and Another v Gohil [2012] EWCA Civ 1550, [2013] 1 FLR (forthcoming) and its interpretation of s 9 of the Crime (International Co Operation) Act 2003 together with its impact on disclosure in matrimonial financial cases.  Here the court had to grapple with what Parliament intended when it drafted the legislation and the manner in which that had previously been interpreted by an earlier and differently constituted Court of Appeal.   The Court had to decide whether a previous decision of its own was decided  per incuriam having failed to consider International Treaties to which the UK was a party and which had an impact on the specific purpose for which evidence obtained pursuant to Letters of Request to foreign jurisdictions could be used.   In allowing the appeal, it was clear that the respondent wife was not permitted to use the evidence for a collateral purpose such as her application to set aside the consent order in the financial remedy proceedings.  But what if the material obtained had already been aired in open court and heard by others, not only the wife, such that it was in the public domain?  Following R v Gooch [1999] Cr App R (S) 283 the Court held that the wife could not use the material itself because of its having been obtained for a specific purpose but she could use her knowledge of it as a 'springboard for her enquiries' but such enquiries would have to be made using the normal FPR 2010 route such as Pt 24.

The full version of this article appears in the February 2013 issue of Family Law.

 

 

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from