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
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

Judicial Family Policy

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : judicial-family-policy
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : 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