All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P
‘It is the view of the [Group: WG] that the Family Court has fallen behind the criminal courts in its approach to their evidence … Those young people that the WG heard from do not expect, or even want, the judge to do as they say; they want to know that they have been listened to and this perceived (and in many cases actual) defect cannot be cured with by meeting the judge or tribunal alone if at all. To hear a child must mean to hear her or his evidence and if the child/young person is not going to give oral evidence there must be provision for their evidence to be heard as directly as possible without interpretation by the court appointed officers or others.’Of terminology: the Group preferred to retain its existing terms for the individuals involved, namely ‘children’ and ‘vulnerable witnesses’. To this they add ‘intimidated witnesses’ (para 30). This means incorporating into any definition of what is intended to be covered by the rules what exactly is meant by ‘witness’; and that it may include a party. Witnesses will in rare cases also involve those who are examined for the court (as in Re K and H: a father did not want to have to cross-examine his step-daughter who made the allegations against him which brought the case to court; and the judge said this was not the court’s role either). This will involve FPRC in the drafting of a careful definition of terms, which the Group’s drafting has so far evaded. Its present draft rule has no definition of to what the rule is addressed and as to exactly when it will apply (para 35(v)).