Professional McKenzie Friends

Tags

Court Proceedings, divorce, Family Law, lay advisers, mckenzie friends, self-representation

 

Going to Court is a nerve-wracking, stressful and emotional experience. Going to Court alone, with no support or help either with the preparation or someone to quietly support and advise you during the hearings amplifies that stress 10-fold. McKenzie Friends, on the whole, do an excellent job in supporting and advising Litigants in Person and the good ones tend to go unheralded and the  few rogue ones are held up as shining examples of why McKenzie Friends are detrimental to Litigants. More and more litigants are having to self-represent,and I have seen an increase in Litigants who don’t have English as a first language calling the advice line I work for – around of one third of all calls to the helpline are from those who have English as a second or third language.

The Judiciary recently launched a Consultation  called “Reforming the courts’ approach to McKenzie Friends” and is open until 31^st May 2016.   The Consultation asks 10 questions and makes a number of suggestions.

A Register of McKenzie Friends.

In his recent blog, Michael Robinson (Custody Minefield) suggests that McKenzie Friends  sign up to the Professional Paralegal Register and therefore creating a register of McKenzie Friends. McKenzie Friends are not Paralegals, and not all Paralegals engage in MF work, the two are separate and should be kept separate, otherwise there may be confusion for clients/litigants.

It iIs my understanding that  the Institute of Paralegals intend to run a future project for the IoP to become the recognised body for McKenzie Friends . This is actually good news as it means that McKenzie Friends  would have practicing certificates, be graded according to the number of years experience and any relevant qualifications they may have,  to abide by a Code of Conduct as set by the IoP and have access to a wealth of support and experience from the IoP and its members.  I would hope the IoP make a clear distinction between Professional Paralegals and McKenzie Friends.

However, I would prefer to see a specific register for  McKenzie Friends – one that details areas of expertise, lists experience, relevant legal qualifications, fees, and so on.  Such a register would enable Litigants to source the most appropriate McKenzie Friend for them and their case; knowing that the information is up-to-date and the McKenzie Friend is a member of a professional body so that should there be any issues about the service received, a formal complaint can be raised with the IoP.   To be clear, the IoP isn’t a regulatory body, but a professional membership body and as such  do not have any powers to compel action to be taken or to award compensation. They can, however, discipline members of the Institute and advise clients on how to complain and to whom. . Perhaps, in time, the IoP or indeed the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP) may become a regulatory body.  The proposed Code of Conduct would also be resolved by McKenzie Friends being able to join a recognised professional body, as the IoP already have an extensive Code of Conduct for Paralegals, and this could for the basis for an adaptation specifically for McKenzie Friends.

For those wishing to be known as Professional McKenzie Friends – ie fee-charging perhaps there is scope for Central Law Training or National Association of Licensed Paralegals to offer relevant training courses and qualifications tailored specifically for McKenzie Friends. CLT and NALP already offer a wide range of Paralegal Qualifications that are excellent and provide the successful student with a professional legal qualification that is widely recognised.  A similar qualification for McKenzie Friends would provide them with a higher level of professionalism that is currently not available for them.

All this would be voluntary, but if McKenzie Friends are going to be Professional McKenzie Friends, then lets ensure that they have access to the best possible resources/training/membership bodies/ possible – it protects both the McKenzie Friend  and the litigant.

A Handbook for McKenzie Friends and Litigants;

This is an excellent idea – a well-written Plain English guide for both Litigants and McKenzie Friends, especially the occasional McKenzie Friends , or the family friend who attends court to offer moral support.  The Family Law A to Z provides an excellent “dictionary” of legal terms and definitions, as well as being an essential reference guide., and in the absence of any Handbook, the A to Z is the next best thing.   Natasha Phillips has written in more details about the proposed Handbook here.

To Charge Fees or Not?

I don’t know a single McKenzie Friend who could afford to spend the required amount of time with each litigant, advising, helping with court preparation, attending whole days in Court etc without being able to charge a modest fee for their time and expertise.  To banish fee-charging McKenzie Friends would be a disaster for Litigants, especially those who have no other source of support or advice to rely on. What about those Litigants who don’t have English as a first language, or have dyslexia, or struggle generally with the archaic legal terminology; the Litigants who have been victims of Domestic Abuse, or false allegations, or who are so overwhelmed by the whole proceedings that they are little more than a crumpled mess on the floor? How on earth does banishing fee-charging Mfs help them? Those that fall into these categories would find the court process very difficult to navigate, take up far more court time than they would with the assistance of a Professional MF.   If travel and another associated costs are also to be removed as a result of this consultation, then quite simply, the number of McKenzie Friends being able to provide that vital court-day support and assistance would plummet, leaving litigants alone, vulnerable and struggling during the court process.

This whole section of the Consolation reads to me as not about protecting Litigants but about protectionism for solicitors; and seeking the wholescale removal of fee-charging  McKenzie Friends from courts.

This Town Ain’t Big Enough for the Both of Us.

Yes it is. There is a need for the services solicitors and barristers offer and provide, but there is also an increasing need for the vital services professional McKenzie Friends offer and provide.  Along with LASPO, the number of law firms has fallen, opening up new opportunities for Paralegal firms and fee-charging McKenzie Friends. The vast majority of those who use MF services (or Paralegal firms) do so because they simply can’t afford the high rates that solicitors charge, so it’s not as if  McKenzie Friends take work away from solicitors. I would argue that an experienced, knowledge McKenzie Friend assisting a Litigant actually helps the solicitor acting for the other side and can help prevent lengthy delays in the litigant dealing with and returning communications.

What’s In a Name?

The consultation also proposes to do away with the term McKenzie Friend and to replace it with “Court Supporter”.  I feel that Court Support is misleading – the  McKenzie Friend isn’t there to support the Court, but to support the Litigant.  In Scotland, McKenzie Friends are known as “Lay Advisers”, and while this is a better option, it doesn’t reflect the experience and any legal qualifications the Lay Adviser/MF may have.  If fee-charging McKenzie Friends are to become a profession in their own right by (for example) becoming a member of a professional body, being listed on a register of Professional McKenzie Friends, taking specific qualifications that I’ve outlined above, then this needs to be adequately reflected in the term used to describe them. Natasha Phillips has proposed Lay Lawyers – I like this a lot. I would also propose that non-fee-charging McKenzie Friends  ie, a friend who attends court with a litigant for moral support be known as a Litigant Supporter. These two different terms would then very clearly differentiate between fee-charging professionals McKenzie Friends and those that are there purely to offer support on the day.

 

This consultation appears to have an agenda – and it’s not one that is supportive of litigants or McKenzie Friends, but one that appears to seeks to remove the ability for McKenzie Friends to charge not just hourly fees but also expenses for attending court with a litigant; and therefore removing McKenzie Friends  completely. It is not in the interests of justice to do this, who would actually benefit from the wholesale removal of McKenzie Friends ? Certainly not the vulnerable litigants.  With the recent announcement of 86 courts to close, LASPO, the number of solicitor firms falling, court fees to rise alter this year (£550 just for a divorce application!), access to justice is slowly and surely being eroded away from the common man/woman. Now more than ever,  there is a need for professional McKenzie Friends /Lay Lawyers to assist litigants and therefore ensure that access to justice is continued and achievable.

Proposed Amendments to Bundles (PD27A)

Tags

Court Proceedings, Family Law

Sir James Munby has recently published a Memorandum proposing amendments to the Bundles PD – PD27A.

In his announcement he said

“PD27A imposes a 350-page limit (PD 27A, para 5.1) and spells out (para 4.1) the fundamental principle that “The bundle shall contain copies of only those documents which are relevant to the hearing and which it is necessary for the court to read or which will actually be referred to during the hearing.” Compliance with these requirements is still fitful.

One matter which is not regulated by PD27A is the length of individual documents. I urged restraint in Re L [2015] EWFC 15, [2015] 1 FLR 1417, paras 21-22. I am not conscious that this has had much effect. I wonder whether the time has therefore not now come to impose page limits for certain types of documents, which will be mandatory in all cases “Unless” – cf PD27A, para 5.1 – “the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly.”

I accordingly suggest for consideration the insertion in PD27A of a new para 5.2A, as follows:

“Unless the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly, any of the following documents included in the bundle shall be limited to no more than the number of sheets of A4 paper and sides of text specified below:”

 

Case summary	4
Statement of issues	2
Position statement	5
Chronology	10
Skeleton argument	15
List of essential reading	1
Witness statement or affidavit (exclusive of exhibits)	20
Expert’s or other report	40
Care plan	10

 

He continues in the Memorandum:

“I ask three questions: (i) is this desirable; (ii) if so, should length be controlled by a page count or a word count; and (iii) if by page count, are the suggested figures are appropriate?

As a separate matter, I further suggest that the final words of PD27A, para 4.3, be re-numbered 4.3A and amended to read (additional words show in italic):

“Copies of all authorities relied on must be contained in a separate composite bundle agreed between the advocates. Unless the court has specifically directed otherwise, being satisfied that such direction is necessary to enable the proceedings to be disposed of justly, the bundle shall not contain more than 10 authorities. Where a case is reported in a law report which contains a headnote, such a report shall be used and transcripts (including transcripts on BAILII) shall not be used. Attention is drawn to the Practice Direction dated 24 March 2012.”

The need for this is indicated by Holman J’s judgment in Seagrove v Sullivan [2014] EWHC 4110 (Fam), paras 21-22.”

 

For those that don’t want to trawl through the Judgement in Seagrove V Sullivan, those paragraphs mentioned in the Memorandum are here:

[21] As long ago as 24 March 2012, the then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction headed ‘Citation of Authorities’. That practice direction is reproduced and very clearly available to family practitioners at page 2962 of the current, 2014 edition of the Family Court Practice. Paragraph 14 of the direction makes plain that it has been made with the agreement of, amongst others, the President of the Family Division. Paragraph 1 provides that:

‘This Practice Direction is issued in order to clarify the practice and procedure governing the citation of authorities and applies throughout the Senior Courts of England and Wales, including the Crown Court, in county courts and in magistrates’ courts.’

It varies an earlier practice direction so that the relevant part of that practice direction now provides that:

‘The bundle of authorities should comply with the requirements of Practice Direction: Citation of Authorities (2012) and in general –

 

(a) have the relevant passages of the authorities marked;

(b) not include authorities for propositions not in dispute; and

(c) not contain more than 10 authorities unless the scale of the appeal warrants more extensive citation.’

Although it is true that subparagraph (c) makes reference to ‘the appeal’, it is, frankly, inconceivable that more authorities should be liable to be cited at the level of first instance than at the level of an appeal. So the clear starting point is that a bundle of authorities should not contain more than ten authorities, unless the scale of the case warrants more extensive citation.

[22] Pausing there, one wonders what it is about this case that requires and justifies citation of three times the number of authorities that the Lord Chief Justice, with the agreement of the President of the Family Division, clearly stipulated.

 

 

Changes to the Child Arrangements Programme

Tags

Children, court outcomes, Court Proceedings, Family Law

The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has announced that the CAP orders for private law children proceedings are to be changed. In an announcement dated 21st January 2016, he wrote:

In November 2014 I asked a group of district judges (Martin Dancey, Chris Darbyshire, Geoff Edwards, James Heyworth and Patrick Perusko, later assisted by Max Ellington) to look again at the CAP orders for private law cases.

I was all too conscious that the existing orders were not doing what was required. I made clear that the task was to be approached with a clean sheet and not encumbered by the requirements of PD12B regarding the content of orders. Since then those judges have been working to draft private law orders that they consider, and I agree, have to meet certain purposes. First, the orders have been prepared on the basis that the primary and most important audience is the parties themselves, more often than not now unrepresented. So they must be as concise as possible and easy to understand. The orders have been seen by AdviceNow and their suggestions for simpler language have been incorporated.

Secondly, a problem with the CAP orders was the extent to which they required recitals before the operative part of the order was reached. Of course recitals can be very useful in explaining the context of an order and dealing with matters that should not be in the order itself. However there was a strong feeling that the sheer length of orders with long recitals was too daunting, particularly for litigants in person. So the new orders are less prescriptive as to recitals, leaving it to the good sense of judges in any particular case what they choose to include or leave out. With the agreement of the Family Procedure Rules Committee I have now approved amendments to PD12B removing the requirement for certain information to be included on the face of orders.

Thirdly, CPR 81.9 requires that, to be enforceable, penal and warning notices must be prominently displayed on the front of the order. Necessarily therefore, all the warning notices have been collected together on the front page. Fourthly, it is hoped that as many judges and justices’ legal advisers as possible will use the Judicial Template to produce the new orders. I would very much encourage you to do so. I know that in some areas they are used by judges and legal advisers at all levels. However, tick box forms have been drawn up for those who do not feel able to use the Templates.

In an attempt to keep these forms to a manageable length they are separated into A Allocation and Gatekeeping, B Case Management Directions and Section 8 and other Orders and C Enforcement. HMCTS staff are being provided with the full text of the orders to which the tick box forms relate so they can draw the appropriate orders using FamilyMan.

Whichever method is used to produce orders I am keen that parties should leave court with a copy of the order made at the hearing whenever possible. That will usually be achieved if the Template is used. Fifthly, it is important that practitioners have access to the same orders as judges so that they can draft consistently.

To that end I am making them available to the Bar and Law Society to circulate to family practitioners.

I am immensely grateful to Martin and his team for all their hard work and trust that users of the revised forms will agree with me that they have made very great improvements.

You will know that District Judge Geoff Edwards was responsible for the family and civil templates. His tireless work on these templates over so many years was invaluable. His unexpected death in November last year left a huge gap. He is sorely missed. I am very grateful to retired District Judge Bill Vincent for stepping in and completing Geoff’s work.

 

The revised orders have been prepared on the basis that:

• The primary and most important audience is the parties themselves, more often than not now unrepresented, and must be as concise as possible and easy to understand.  The orders have been seen by AdviceNow and their suggestions for simpler language have been incorporated.
• A problem with the CAP orders was the extent to which they required recitals before the operative part of the order was reached.  While recitals can be very useful in explaining the context of an order and dealing with matters that should not be in the order itself, there was a strong feeling that the sheer length of orders with long recitals was too daunting, particularly for litigants in person.  The new orders are less prescriptive as to recitals, leaving it to judges in any particular case as to what they choose to include or leave out.  With the agreement of the Family Procedure Rules Committee, the President has approved amendments to PD 12B removing the requirement for certain information to be included on the face of orders.
• Rule 81.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 requires that, to be enforceable, penal and warning notices must be prominently displayed on the front of the order.  All the warning notices have therefore been collected together on the front page.
• It is hoped that as many judges and justices’ legal advisers as possible will use the judicial template to produce the new orders and are encouraged to do so by the President.  Tick box forms have been drawn up for those who do not use the templates.
• In an attempt to keep the forms to a manageable length they are separated into: A Allocation and gatekeeping; B Case management directions and section 8 and other orders; and C Enforcement.
• HMCTS staff are being provided with the full text of the orders to which the tick box forms relate so they can draw the appropriate orders using the courts’ IT programme, FamilyMan.  Whichever method is used to produce orders the President is keen that parties should leave court with a copy of the order made at the hearing whenever possible.

You can view the new “tick-box” Orders here – Child Arrangements Programme Master Orders

More accessible language is very welcome – as the numbers of litigants in person rise in Private Family Law cases, there is ever more a need for simpler, clearer wording and layout of court orders. All too often, parents are left bamboozled by the archaic language in orders – and application forms (one of the reasons why Nick and I wrote the Family Law A-Z). I wonder if there will be a similar overhaul of the Ancillary Relief orders in the near future?

The guidance gives no indication as to when the new “tick-box” orders will be adopted.

 

More support for separating couples and parents – it’s only window-dressing

Tags

Cafcass, Children, court outcomes, Court Proceedings, disgraceful, divorce, Family Law, Legal Aid, parenting, politics

The initiatives  announced yesterday by Simon Hughes and the MoJ have already been met with an outcry among some of the top legal bloggers, the silence from the father’s groups is however deafening. Fathers4Justice are too busy looking inward at each other to have noticed what is happening in the world outside their window – absolutely no comment whatsoever on Clause 11, or on the new reforms announced yesterday.  None.  Too busy asking for donations I guess….FnF have posted a few links on social media sites, but again no comment from them. I admire the work they do at local branch level, but as a national organisation, the need to be outspoken is greater than ever.  The only voices’ I’ve heard recently are the legal profession and legal bloggers, Michael Robinson from the Custody Minefield, the author Nick Langford and Nick Woodall. Where is everyone else??

The helpline pilot that will run for just six months from November will be run by CAFCASS, who routinely let down children, mothers and fathers, who are not trusted by parents, who are not independent and have an agenda to work from (and it’s not a child-focused agenda) – the Government seriously think parents will trust this helpline, that this helpline will help parents from start to conclusion? What will happen to parents whose situation is still on-going when the pilot ends? Where they turn to for the support and advice they so desperately need?  These are real people with complicated situations that centre around children – not lab rats with which to experiment upon.

While the expansion of in-house support for Litigants while at Court has potential, the fact it will most likely be staffed by local advice centres (read CAB) who are already facing funding issues and over-stretched resources as it is – and most volunteers are not legally qualified or well-versed in family law (there are a few, such as the volunteers on the Wikivorce advice line); or students is deeply concerning. Marilyn Stowe says in her blog :

What skills or experience do young graduates have in law, negotiation, practice and procedure?

Students are in no position to give legal advice. This is especially true in divorce cases. What kind of reassurance will they be able to offer sometimes much more mature adults who are going through one of the most traumatic periods in their life? Are they really equipped to deal with the kinds of emotional outbursts that are common in these kinds of cases?

To expect students to replace proper legal advice and support is wrong – the Government now realise that they fucked up in an unimaginable way by the way Legal Aid has been withdrawn, and the effects that this has had on those caught up in the travesty that is now the Family Justice system. They are now busily trying to rectify this almighty fuck-up by throwing a few  “initiatives” into the wind when really all they are doing is pissing in the snow (never eat yellow snow).

While the Norgrove Report was not a success, and fell short of what was expected; most of the recommendations have either been ignored or watered down into such a diluted state that the original recommendations are almost unrecognisable – and yet again, these new proposed reforms ignore the Norgrove Report completely.

One recommendation in the Report was to have Hubs, to provide an actual meeting place for parents to get the support, information and advice they would require while going through separation and post-separation; what we got instead was the completely useless and unused Sorting Out Separation App with it’s clunky and unfriendly interfacing – not to mention the often inappropriate signposting suggestions that the App would make.

Imagine having physical Hubs in every town – proper, warm, welcoming, safe meeting places where parents can go, seek help, support, and information, advice on a whole range of issues that can and do arise during and after separation. Proper face to face help from a wide range of local professionals who can support them through-out and ensure that no-one who approaches them falls through the gaps. This is achievable, with co-ordination,  a little bit of effort and not too much funding.    People need to be fully informed, be armed with the greatest peaceful ammunition that there is – facts and correct information, so that they can make intelligent, informed decisions, see through the bullshit from the other side  – pimping up the Sorting Out Separation App and the Gov.UK sites simply isn’t enough.

Hughes is very critical of those who use the Courts for dispute-solving – “ Too many people end up fighting expensive and confrontational court battles and I am determined that more people resolve their problems outside of the courts” Does he think that people just don’t bother with alternative dispute resolutions? Does he not realise that for many, Court is the only option after all else has failed? How on earth does one person come to an agreement with a former spouse or partner who simply will not engage with them? For some, mediation is not suitable due to domestic abuse or when one party has whisked the children off to the other end of the country and refuses to reveal their whereabouts. Mediation has its merits, but it is not the Golden Goose that many seem to think it is.  If Mr Hughes thinks that people don’t try hard enough to resolve their issues outside of court, then I invite him to spend time on the Wikivorce forum, and time answering calls on the helpline – perhaps then he would realise what is actually happening, what people are actually experiencing and the obstacles they face on a daily basis.

Lost in the midst of all this, of these initiatives, proposals,  of furious back-peddling; are the children and families caught up in this mess of a justice system. None of this means better outcomes for children, less waiting time for cases to be heard – to be resolved – their voices being listened to, to me it seems as though it is anything but in the best interests of the children.

 

 

180 Divorces to be Set Aside?

Tags

Court Hearings, court outcomes, Court Proceedings, divorce, Family Law, marriage

Rapisarda v Colladon 2014

 

This is a very interesting and unusual case. It involves the Queen’s Proctor making an application to dismiss 180 divorce petitions,  Decree Nisis and Absolutes.  The opening paragraph in this case from Lord Justice Mumby reads:

1. I have been hearing applications by the Queen’s Proctor to dismiss a large number of divorce petitions and also, in many of the cases, to set aside decrees of divorce (some nisi, some absolute) obtained in consequence of what can only be described as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale. At the outset of the final hearing on 9 April 2014 – the hearing was in open court – an important question arose in relation to the possible impact on the reporting of the proceedings of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (the 1926 Act). Needing time to consider the matter I expressed no view at the time save to remind the journalists who were present in court of the existence of the 1926 Act and to draw to their attention some words of Sir Stephen Brown P in Moynihan v Moynihan (No 1) [1997] 1 FLR 59, 62.

The judgement has been analysed in quite some detail by Suesspicious Minds “The Pages of a Most Fragrant French Novel”  – but with no explanation of WHY the Queen’s Proctor has made this application – mainly because the Judgement doesn’t specifiy the WHY.

I will come to the WHY in a bit, but first, wanted to explain a bit more about the role of the Queen’s Proctor. Allen Hortsman in Victorian Divorce notes  the  Queen’s Proctor “was a fearsome shadow looking over all proceedings“. Suesspicious Minds sums up the role of the Queen’s Proctor as

“he or she, is the person who is authorised to intervene in litigation on behalf of the Queen, i.e when there’s some heavy issue at stake. For divorce, that all flows from s8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973″

The delay between a Decree Nisi (or Conditional Order) and a Decree Absolute gives the Queen’s Procter an ideal opportunity to intervene in proceedings – such as is the case with these 180 divorces – however, nowadays, such opportunities for intervention are somewhat limited. Gone are the days when divorces where based on the concept of matrimonial offence and where divorce was prohibited on the grounds of collusion  – ie the parties had created a matrimonial offence – the scenario where the man allows himself to be “found” by a private investigator in a hotel  room with another woman, thus meaning the wife could petition on the grounds of adultery.  The Queen’s Proctor would investigate such divorce applications if suspicions were raised that collusion was afoot.  If you want to read more about how these investigations were conducted then read Holy Deadlock written by  A.P. Herbert.

On the subject of collusion, one unnamed Justice in 1890 expressed the need for total honesty in divorce cases:

“Now what is this special provision with regard to collusion? I think its object is to compel the parties to come into the Court of Divorce with clean hands. It is to oblige them to bring all material and pertinent facts to the notice of the  Court.,m to prevent their blinding the eyes of the Court in any respect; to oblige them so to act as to enable the Court to do justice between the parties”

 

It is the issue of collusion that is evident in the 180 divorce cases in which the Queen’s Proctor has intervened and requested they be set aside. Here is the WHY ;

They all involve Italian couples – in 179 of the petitions submitted, the postal address of a post box on the High Street of Maidenhead was used to establish residence in the UK.  In the 180th case, the petitioner claimed to be living at an address in Epsom, Surrey  – all the spouses lived in Italy, none of them were actually resident in England, and therefore did not meet the residence criteria.  It is illegal to use a false address or to falsely claim residence for the purposes of a divorce.  The Italian couples were alledegdly promised a “quick” divorce in England – the divorces were allegedly organised divorce agency charging up to €4,000 for a quick divorce.  The courts in England/Wales have no jurisdiction to consider divorce applications where both parties do not meet the residence criteria and live outside the jurisdiction. This is indeed an attempt to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale.

When the application was first made, last year, and the initial hearing was held in October 2013, there were representatives from both Thames Valley Police and the Italian Government to observe proceedings.

Divorce in Italy is complex – it was only  introduced in Italy in 1970 and Italian couples face a mandatory three-year period of legal judicial separation before being able to apply for divorce. In most cases, the entire divorce process could take up to 5 years as a result of the complexity of Italian bureaucracy and renowned slowness of the Italian judicial system.  Gabriele Giambrone, Senior Partner of Giambrone Law has commented:

“As a result of Italian archaic legislation on the dissolution of matrimonial affairs over the recent years more and more Italians have recently embarked in forum shopping around EU member states, mainly England and Rumania, by circumventing these Italian mandatory rules and using European Union legislation which recognizes divorces granted in any EU member state. The consequences for the individuals implicated in this fraudulent scheme may be far reaching: – adds Giambrone- Divorces obtained illegally or fraudulently overseas will not be recognised in Italy and, if any of the 180 couples has remarried in Italy in the meantime, they are at risk of being deemed bigamist in law, which is considered to be an additional criminal offence so they are also at risk of criminal prosecution in Italy”

I’m astonished that there has been no press coverage of this at all – after all the column inches devoted to the “sham marriage” scandals of recent years, I would have thought that “sham divorces” would have at least warranted some sort of coverage – if only to show that the Queen’s Proctor is doing his job properly, and to send out a clear message to others that England/Wales is not the place to lodge a fraudulent divorce petition with a bogus address.

 

Cafcass publishes its draft strategic plan – Consultation now open.

Tags

Cafcass, Children, Court Proceedings, divorce, Family Law, parenting, politics

Cafcass has published its draft strategic plan for 2013-15, which is now open for consultation.

The document is an outline strategic plan for the two years starting from April 2013. It includes the Service’s role within ongoing family justice reform, including meeting all key performance indicators and steadily improving the quality and timeliness of case analyses prepared for court. The strategy also includes a continuing commitment to “doing more with less”, as demand increases and budgets are reduced, as well as a continuing commitment to health and wellbeing of staff.

In the plan, Cafcass commits to publishing at least four studies a year into the issues affecting children and how children’s cases are handled by it and others.

Stakeholders and other interested parties are encouraged to look at the plan, which can be viewed here. Please send any feedback to zzcafcasscommsteam@flex-r.gsi.gov.uk by 8th March 2013.

 

 The strategic priorities are:

 

• Making further improvements in the quality of our work.
• Implementing our part of the family justice reform programme and actively supporting the
overall reform programme.
• Enhancing our understanding of diversity in casework, given the uniqueness of each child
we have responsibilities towards.
• Becoming even more resilient by handling higher volumes of work whilst making further
savings in our budget.
• Using our influence positively as the voice of the child and the eyes and ears of family courts

 

Can a court hearing be done on the telephone?

Tags

Court Hearings, Court Proceedings, divorce

Guidelines for telephone hearings in district registries and County courts
Telephone hearings in civil hearings were introduced in 1999 as part of the Civil Justice Reforms following Lord Woolf’s Review of the civil justice system in England and Wales. More recently the availability of telephone hearings has been expanded to cover a wider variety of hearings. To reflect this, the Practice Direction covering telephone hearings has been revised. This is a brief guide on the scheme as it applies in county courts and district registries.
Rules

The procedures for telephone hearings can be found under Practice Direction (PD) 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). This Practice Direction supplements Part 23 of the CPR.

All hearings listed as suitable in the practice direction will normally be held by telephone (PD 6.2)
Procedures under the scheme

Hearings to be conducted by telephone unless otherwise ordered.

All allocation hearings, listing hearings, case management hearings and interim applications with a time estimate of no more than one hour.
Any other application, with the consent of all the parties and the agreement of the court, shall also be included.

Hearings excluded.

Where all of the parties are unrepresented
Where more than four parties wish to make representations at the hearing (for this purpose where two or more parties are represented by the same person they are treated as one party).

Applications in respect of hearings not to be conducted by telephone conference

Parties may make applications under the practice direction for a hearing not to be conducted by telephone. If they do:

It must be made at least 7 days before the hearing: and
It may be made by letter.

Such applications will be determined by the court without the need of the parties to attend court for a hearing. The usual application fee will apply.
Arrangements for the conference call

In the case of interim applications the responsibility for the conference call shall be the applicant’s (providing the applicant is represented)

In all other cases responsibility for the conference call shall normally be with the claimant’s representatives. If the claimant is unrepresented the first named defendant who is represented shall be responsible for all arrangements. The court may on occasions direct another party to be responsible for making arrangements if it sees fit to do so.

All other arrangements shall be in accordance with those set out in paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10 of the Practice Direction. (References to the designated legal representative should be read as the applicant’s legal representative (if any), or the legal representative of such other party as the court directs to arrange the telephone hearing).

Documents

The party arranging the conference call must also lodge at the court a case summary and a draft order if the claim is allocated to the multi-track. The same applies in an unallocated case, where the arranging party considers that it should be so allocated and in any other case where the court has so directed.

If any party seeks to rely on any other document, such as expert reports, cost schedules, skeleton arguments or alternative draft orders, then they must be lodged with the court.

All draft orders should be agreed by the parties in whole or part if at all possible.

Any documents required for the hearing or to be relied upon by a party must be lodged with the court by no later than 4.00 p.m. on the last working day before the hearing. All documents must clearly indic ate the time and date of the hearing and marked ‘for urgent attention’.
Listing and timing

In lists where all or a significant number of the hearings are by way of telephone, it will be critical for them to run on time. In order to facilitate the scheme running smoothly, parties must use their best efforts to: –

Give realistic time estimates, as there will be no opportunity to overrun. All time estimates must take into account time for giving judgment, where appropriate and any potential argument as to costs.
Ensure all documentation is properly lodged on time.
Communicate properly with all other parties to ensure that areas of agreement are clearly determined and areas of dispute can be concisely argued.
Ensure that they are ready for the call to be linked up promptly at the listed time.

There may be occasions when the court is not ready for a conference call. In these situations the court will endeavour to provide the parties with an estimate of the delay or an alternative time when the call should be re-connected.
Conference service providers

The telecommunications service provider used to facilitate a telephone hearing under Practice Direction 23 must be an approved service provider as indicated at 6.10 (1) of the Practice Direction. From 1st April 20011 the following providers have demonstrated the capability to facilitate hearings:

British Telecoms Plc 0800 028 4194

LegalConnect 0800 953 0405 | E-mail: support@legalconnect.co.uk

Kidatu 0800 279 4595 | E-mail: info@kidatu.co.uk

Arkadin 0800 279 5596 | E-mail: legalevents@arkadin.co.uk

Recording of hearings

From April 2007, all telephone hearings will be recorded and stored by the approved service providers.

A request for a tran­script­ of a telephone hearing should be made to the court where the hearing has taken place. Form EX107 (tape tran­script­ion request) must be used in all instances. Please see EX107 Info for more information which provides help on completing the EX107 and a full list of court approved tran­script­ion companies and prices.
Complaints about service providers

The service providers on the approved list are subject to a contract with the Department. Under the terms of that contract, providers are obliged to have a robust complaints procedure in place.

Complaints relating to the provision of the telephone hearings in relation to – for example technical problems during the conference, billing, price and access to calls must be directed to the service provider.
If a court or court user wishes to make a complaint about the service provider or their conduct, they must in the first instance contact the relevant court manager and raise this complaint with them in accordance with the procedure set out in the Complaints Leaflet EX343.