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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

Fathers4Justice 'Judgebuster' Campaign

Sep 29, 2018, 17:33 PM
Slug : fathers4justice-judgebuster-campaign
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 17, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88313

On 12 September the Judicial Communications Office issued the following statement. 'There is no justification or public interest served in publishing the home addresses or other private details of judges. It can serve no purpose other than to intrude into the privacy of the judge, and encourage harassment of the judge and his/her family in their family home.

In the case of their court work family judges have to make difficult decisions based on the individual circumstances of a case. By their very nature, these cases are emotional and feelings often run high on the part of a dissatisfied party. However, all parties have the opportunity to express their opinion to the judge in person prior to a decision being made, and the right to seek to appeal decisions that they regard as unfair.

That being so it is inappropriate and irresponsible to publish this form of private information'.

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