Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

Judicial Family Policy

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Title : Judicial Family Policy
Slug : judicial-family-policy
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Nov 7, 2006, 11:19 AM
Article ID : 86677

At the same conference, and in the same week as Mr Justice Munby gave his judgment in Re Webster (see 'Cases' below) Lord Justice Wall repeated his views on open family courts as expressed in the Hershman-Levy lecture in June 2006 and the September issue of Family Law at [2006] Fam Law 747. His position (in favour of giving the media and in practice the Press access to family proceedings, provided that there were clear ground rules about what they could and could not report) was in substantial agreement with the response to the Government consultation paper by the substantial majority of the High Court Judges of the Family Division, put forward by the President on their behalf. His Lordship did not however favour, indeed was opposed to, the admission of the public into family courts, even given the qualification that there would be a judicial discretion to exclude the public in certain circumstances. Lord Justice Wall then gave his opinion on some particular issues raised by the consultation paper. See December [2006] Fam Law for the full news item.

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