Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Panorama

On Monday Panorama showed a report on the journey through the family courts of a family accused of causing serious non-accidental injuries to their baby son: ‘Parents’ Child Abuse Nightmare’. After lengthy police investigation and care proceedings no prosecution was pursued and a finding of fact hearing exonerated the parents, the Judge holding that there was no cogent evidence that causation of the injuries was non-accidental.

.

It was a shocking story, perhaps more so for those who do not work in the system and have not been caught up in it in respect of their own families. On another level, for care practitioners like myself it was however in many respects unremarkable – although the case broke new ground in respect of issues concerning publication of judgments and the identity of experts the care proceedings themselves raised familiar issues and followed a well worn path. What was unusual in terms of the care proceedings was the total failure of the Local Authority to make out threshold.

.

There were several predictable references to the secrecy of the system, though the system was not so secret as to prevent the programme from being made. The fact that permission had been given for the proceedings to be reported did not appear to attenuate the hyperbole about the cloak and dagger approach of the courts (In fairness though, the lengths to which the parties and the BBC had to go to get permission were not insignificant as can be seen from the number of citations which follow at the end of this post). Continue Reading »

Advertisements

Free CPD

Want some free CPD? Its approaching the CPD year end for solicitors (Oct) and not all that far off for barristers (Dec)… Well, lucky readers of Pink Tape may now sample the wares of CPDcast for free using the code below. CPDcast tell me that:

‘CPDcast is an online CPD provider to the legal profession, helping solicitors, barristers and legal executives get their points and keep up to date. Their library contains over 400 titles in 25 practice areas, divided into pithy 30 minute legal podcasts.

To get your free podcast just select the one you’d like to listen to for free. Then when you get to the payment screen put in the following voucher code “pinktape2010” which will discount the price to 0.

This voucher code can be used to listen to any one podcast on our site and is valid until the end of this calendar year.’

Feedback on the CPD they provide could be helpfully posted in comments on this post.

Love me Tender

Nearly Legal has posted a really important blog post on the LSCs shifting position on the question of matter starts given to firms under the recent tender process. He suggests that the LSCs new position may now put it in breach of its own tender rules and at risk of legal challenge from firms who were unsuccessful in the tender bidding process.

If you are from a firm who has lost out in the tender process to a local firm who successfully bid for a large number of matter starts you should read this NOW and circulate it widely.

POSTSCRIPT:

Email from a colleague:


Though it applies to housing rather than family, the judge criticised the arbitrary nature of the tender process.
High Court judge has today branded some of the criteria used by the Legal Services Commission in its recent social welfare tender ‘utterly absurd and totally irrational’.

Mr Justice Collins also said the ‘tick-box’ exercise adopted by the LSC was not appropriate for tendering to provide a public service that is designed to ensure access to justice.

Collins made the comments during a hearing in relation to a judicial review of the social welfare tender process which has been lodged by Birmingham firm The Community Law Partnership (CLP).

CLP claimed the criteria and scoring system used by the LSC to award contracts was irrational, because the system rewarded firms that took more appeals to the upper tribunal. It said firms that were more successful in the lower tribunal were penalised.

CLP, which specialises in housing law, had unsuccessfully appealed against the LSC’s decision not to award it a contract.

The judge said: ‘I am bound to say this is a dreadful decision and on the face of it the approach [taken by the LSC] is totally irrational.

‘How can it be rational to penalise a firm that takes fewer cases to the upper tribunal, when any decent firm will do its best to make sure it doesn’t have to appeal?’ he said.

Collins added: ‘If firms have a good record of ensuring they succeed in the lower tier tribunal, then appeals to the upper tribunal won’t be needed. To adopt a criteria which looks to the number of appeals to the upper tribunal and punishes those who do not need to appeal to it, because they are successful in the lower tier tribunal, is utterly absurd and totally irrational.’

He said: ‘There is ample evidence that this is a highly reputable and utterly efficient firm that is approved of by the judges, and you’re going to ruin it. You’re bringing it to an end as a result of this decision. How can you justify that? You can’t.’

Collins asked counsel for the LSC, Peter Oldham QC, if a firm’s reputation could be taken into account or whether it was simply a ‘tick-box exercise’.

Oldham replied: ‘I’d hope they’d take everything into account,’ but said the LSC had to comply with public contract law and could not exercise discretion.

Oldham said: ‘The tender invitation went out last year. If they wanted to argue about the criteria they should have done it then, not now.’

But the judge said: ‘Those tendering are entitled to take the view that access to justice criteria will be taken into account and discretion used, rather than just box ticking.’

Collins adjourned the hearing and advised the LSC to ‘consider carefully’ its position. ‘If you fight this and lose it, you could set a precedent,’ he warned.

Collins said that if the LSC’s decision not to award a contract to CLP remained unchanged, he would expect a judicial review to succeed.

‘I take the view that it’s not only arguable, but it would be difficult to dispute that the criteria relied on to mean this firm didn’t get a contract is totally irrational,’ he said.

POST POST SCRIPT: Nearly Legal has also posted on this JR. I understand the full hearing is scheduled for c 10 days time. Watch this space…

How charming: Tomorrow on Radio 4 at 8pm Edward Stourton chairs a live debate in which Professor David Marsland defends his view that the mentally and morally unfit should be sterilised. Part of the Iconoclasts Programme.

Democracy in action

Apparently, Pink Tape has been shortlisted for the 2010 Blawggie Awards, category Best Legal Commentary. Who’da thunk it? This could be my moment…

Anyhoo, vote Now all you lovely readers.  Voting is open until Friday 3 Sept.

CAFCASS – What to do?

Thank Goodness for that – the new(ish) President of the Family Division has decided not to renew the guidance and may scrap the duty guardian scheme. See this article extracting an interview reported fully in Family Affairs.

On another note, a proposal to scrap CAFCASS and to reallocate it’s responsibilities to local authorities. Clearly something pretty radical needs to be done, but I’m no fan of that as a solution – whatever arrangements are made it is crucial that arrangements for the provision of Guardians, and to a lesser extent for reporting in children matters to be independent of local authorities.

Half Yearly Appraisal

Boy 2.0 is now 6 months old and it seems like a long time ago that I poured myself back into a slightly-too-tight suit and dragged my flabby sleep deprived self back to work. I was thinking how the haze is beginning to lift and that sometimes now I have time for hairdryer and breakfast before I leave the house in the morning. However, whilst boy 2.0 is not the extraordinary vomit machine that his elder brother was, this week we have the introduction of solids. I am therefore resigned to prospect of attempting to address the court in a suit encrusted with baby rice and fruit puree for the foreseeable future. Thank goodness that self respect, like sleep, is a dispensable luxury.