Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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