Google+
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts

Thursday, 26 May 2016

The Growing Prevalence of Prevalence - 25/05/16

It's a case law episode for this Bite, which you can listen to right here.

First, R v Bondzie.  Ever wondered why the Crown has taken to serving a statement that just tells you that drug dealing is bad?  Here's why they do it; what effect it could have on sentence; what they need to do to give it an effect and why their efforts to date have been generally pointless and probably damaging to their own aims.

Then two quickies: R v Bala, which upholds marriage in all its forms and R v Hussain, in which the Court of Appeal confirms that you can't second-guess a jury.

The Law Commission has reported on its sentencing code project.  If you want to read more you can do so here.

Let us know whether you prefer the show like this or if you'd prefer to go back to listening to us drinking wine and eating cake.


PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Friday, 25 April 2014

S12E04 - All Change! No Change!

On this week's show, which you can listen to by clicking these very words, Ben and Kirstin talk their way through the so-called "revolution" in the family courts.

It is something of an oddity that reforms that actually do very little in terms of changing the status quo and, instead, assume that lawyers have been doing it wrong for all of this time, should be heralded as a "revolution" by a political judge.  Check out the government hype in the links below.

Not content with having a pop at the President of the Family Division's self-congratulation, Ben finds the High Court utterly objectionable as it gives a litigant in person a raw deal and seems to object to justice being done.

Knife crime guidelines get the sharp tongue of Kirstin as we celebrate another Court of Appeal decision that is a little lacking in purpose.

In addition, we have a little look at the cost of getting judicial review wrong - or rather, not turning to the silver bullet that is ADR.

Yes, you may be able to tell that we are feeling more than a little snarky this week.  It might pass.  It might not.

Links:

Law students in divorce courts and putting the children first.
Sir James Munby’s Oscar Speech: http://flba.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014view11-2.doc.docx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610014/Law-students-drafted-help-resolve-divorce-cases-shake-family-justice-system.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/23/law-studentstrusted-counselling-divorcing-couples_n_5197804.html
http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/local-government-news/family-justice-reforms-put-childrens-need-first/
http://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogs/new-family-court/
THINK OF THE CHILDREN (or “How to use children to push a government austerity agenda" video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA99gui758I
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf

Knife crime guidance.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/747.html

The cost of getting it wrong: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/11l97.html

Medical excuses and litigants in person getting steamrollered.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/332.html

Friday, 30 August 2013

S09E06 - Forced Marriages


A cake and bourbon show with no cake.  Or bourbon.  Or Ben.  Or Jonathan.


What we do have though is an in depth look at the work of the family courts of England and Wales with a particular focus on the increasingly common issue of forced marriages.



Have a listen right here.



Joining Kirstin this week (actually in Podcast Towers for a change!) is Joseph Lynch.  He is a family law specialist whose work mainly involves public law cases - where a local authority is seeking to remove the child from the custody of the parents.



Joe can be contacted via his chambers, Central Chambers.



We will be back in <cough> six weeks with a new series.  Series 10 is quite likely to end with a party.  What do you say?  Fancy joining us for a few sneaky drinks at a live show?  Let us know on the Twitter, Google+, email or on 0161 408 5037



Some other stories for which we did not have time this week:


Grayling turns on yet another “valued partner”. Serco this time.

...but refuses to back down on Legal Aid destruction.

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Orders or Suspected sex offender restraining orders
Jonathan Rayner, writing in the Law Society Gazette, quotes Law Society criminal law committee chair Richard Atkinson told me: ‘It is a dangerous move to take away the requirement for a conviction to make a restrictive order, not least because the order will be interpreted as proof that you committed the offence and that you are indeed a paedophile.
‘Also, if you resort to litigation to resist the restrictions, you are effectively telling the prosecution in advance how you intend to conduct your defence – giving the prosecution two bites of the cherry.’


Also, keep a lookout for a new law-based podcast, coming soon on the Northpod network of podcasts.  Don't worry as we will add the new show to your podcast feed automatically when it's available so you don't miss out.
 

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Contact our Support

Email us:

mail@northpod.co.uk