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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

CARE PROCEEDINGS: Re H (Care Proceedings: Adjournment) [2006] EWCA Civ 1875

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : re-h-care-proceedings-adjournment-2006-ewca-civ-1875
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 19, 2006, 11:15 AM
Article ID : 85245

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Rix and Neuberger LJJ; 19 December 2006)

The care proceedings concerned children who had been living in a household with a man charged with a variety of sex offences, including child pornography. He was awaiting trial. There were a number of child witnesses expected to give evidence at the criminal trial whose evidence was considered relevant to the care proceedings. At a very late stage the police objected to use of the evidence of these witnesses in the care proceedings, seeking an adjournment of the care proceedings on the basis that the witnesses, not just the child witnesses, were very fragile, and would be unable to face the ordeal of giving evidence twice. The judge in the care proceedings found that all of the witnesses were relevant, that the child witnesses ought not to be required to give oral evidence, and that an adult witness ought to give evidence, notwithstanding her fragility, but should not be cross examined. The judge went on to adjourn the care proceedings until after the criminal trial.

This had been a confused and confusing hearing. The judge should have dealt first with the issue of whether or not to adjourn the care proceedings. Having concluded that the care proceedings should be adjourned, there had then been no need to rule on the issue of cross-examination. The judge had been entitled to take the case management decision to adjourn, even if the Court of Appeal would have made a different decision in all the circumstances of the case. However, it had been premature to take decisions about witnesses and cross-examination; the matter could be looked at in the light of the developments at the criminal trial.

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