Legal aid skewing family courts, says senior judge

Family Law|December 8th 2014

Current eligibility criteria for legal aid are unbalancing family court procedures, the President of the Family Division has declared.

Sir James Munby spoke at the recent annual general meeting of the charity Families Need Fathers. He highlighted the availability of legal aid in ‘private’ family cases when domestic violence has been alleged, saying it would be “idle” to imagine that this has not affected the progress of such cases.

Private family cases concern disputes between individuals.

When one partner alleges domestic violence, the President declared, the spouse who made the allegation – “usually but not always the woman” – is often granted legal aid while her partner may have no representation at all, an imbalance of power which presents “problems”.

“It produces problems for the partner, typically the man. It produces problems for the judge. Most importantly of all, it produces problems for the child because, as I repeatedly say, unless both parents have a fair process then the child is not having a fair process and if the parents don’t have a fair process and the child doesn’t have a fair process then the risk one is running is not only injustice to the parent but injustice and worse to the child.”

It is the duty of judges to ensure that proceedings in their courtroom are fair, Sir James continued, and judges must state clearly if the absence of legal representation for one party in a family dispute means that they is not fair and so potentially risk the best interests of any children involved.

The President also referred to the increasingly “sceptical” approach taken by the courts to expert reports presented by children’s Guardians, social workers and Cafcass in family disputes. He noted:

“People who come to court with sloppy things, not properly thought out, are told to go away.”

In August, the Sir James said the Court service may have to pay for some individuals to receive legal representation when legal aid has been refused.

Read a full transcript of Sir James’ speech, entitled Family Separation – Opportunities and Problems, here.

Photo by sheldon0531 via Flickr

 

Share This Post...

Comments(3)

  1. Stitchedup says:

    Sounds like Sir James has seen the elephant in the room.

  2. Luke says:

    ===========================================================================
    When one partner alleges domestic violence, the President declared, the spouse who made the allegation – “usually but not always the woman” – is often granted legal aid while her partner may have no representation at all, an imbalance of power which presents “problems”.
    ===========================================================================
    .
    Yes it creates “problems” alright – problems which the legal system has been ignoring for a long time. Even people who do have a lawyer end up agreeing to a very disadvantageous settlement just to get out of the fight and stop the relentless haemorrhaging of cash going to their lawyer.
    .
    Strange how this doesn’t get mentioned in articles by guest posters here – but then it doesn’t affect their profession’s bottom line does it 🙂
    .
    Thank you for putting this article up Marilyn.

  3. Stitchedup says:

    Have been thinking at little more about this and there may be method on their madness…. why give legal aid to a man accused of domestic abuse if you know it’s pretty much given that any decision will go against him. We know that non-mols are pretty much a rubber stamping exercise, I was advised by the judge not to bother contesting as securing a non-mol was a very “low hurdle” for the applicant, and I would probably just end up costing myself more money. Unfortunately, he was of the opinion that non-mols don’t stop you from doing something you shouldn’t be doing anyway…. eh???? like talking???!!!!???
    It is clear a man is in a position of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to domestic abuse allegations, all the language surrounding this issue supports the notion that women must be believed; applicants are referred to as “victims” and respondents are referred to as “molesters”….. this isn’t a balance of probability decision, this is a politically correct cover my arse decision. Sir James really does need to dig a bit deeper to get the real picture here.

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.



Privacy Policy