Thursday, April 21, 2011

News Brief: Before you shut up shop...

As I went for my daily walk this morning I noticed that some businesses had already shut up shop for Easter. Well, I thought I would get in one more News Brief before the break, for those who are still interested in serious news.

On the subject of news, Lucy Reed over at Pink Tape is continuing her admirable hobby of dissecting newspaper articles to see if they actually have any truth in them. On this occasion it is a story in Metro (sorry, I can't find a link) about the statistical increase in the number of young children needing emergency hospital treatment because of violence, as reported elsewhere (e.g. here). Lucy finds that the increase is probably down to more than just a single issue.

Lucy also posts today about the thrillingly-named statutory instrument The Family Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 2011, which I posted about on Family Law News back on the 7th April. As I stated there (quoting from the explanatory note): The Order provides for modifications and amendments to primary and secondary legislation in relation to provisions made in Family Procedure Rules. Lucy has the exciting details.

In other news, the Law Society Gazette reports the comments of the Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger in the Ambrosiadou v Coward case last week, that court hearings should not be private. He said (at paragraph 50): "As has been stated on many occasions, court hearings should take place in public and should be freely reported unless justice cannot be done on that basis in the particular case, and in that event, the court should ensure that the restrictions on access and reporting are the minimum necessary to enable justice to be done in that case." Will the message be heard?

Lastly, the Law Society Gazette also reports an interesting case that I have not yet found elsewhere. Re H (A Child) [2011] EWCA (Civ) concerned an appeal by a mother against findings and declarations made in the course of contact enforcement proceedings. In particular, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the effect, if any, of the decisions in Re L-W (Children) (Enforcement and Committal: Contact), [2010] EWCA Civ 1253 and Re S (A Child) (Contact Order), [2010] EWCA Civ 705. Worth a quick read.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.