Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

CRIMINAL LAW: Barry v Birmingham Magistrates' Court [2009] EWHC 2571 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Slug : barry-v-birmingham-magistrates-court-2009-ewhc-2571-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 13, 2009, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 85827

(Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court; Scott Baker LJ and Cranston J; 13 October 2009)

The father sought to have a summons issued against the mother, in respect of three incidents in which the mother had ignored the father's attempts to make contact with the child, or had threatened to report the father to the police.

There was no requirement that a person seeking to have a summons issued must approach the police first, although in a particular case it might be a relevant circumstance whether or not the person seeking a summons had approached the police. Inasmuch as the district judge had suggested that it was an invariable requirement that the person take the matter first to the police, he had been wrong in law. On the other hand, in this case the district judge might well have decided that the essential ingredients of harassment were prima facie absent, in that the three incidents described by the father had come nowhere near constituting harassment by the mother, under Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 1.

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