‘In December 2019 Ms. Justice Russell DBE heard an appeal from a fact-finding hearing that took place in private law Children Act proceedings at the Central Family Court in London in the summer of 2019. Her judgement was given in January 2020 and is reported as JH v. MF  EWHC 86 (Fam).’
Becket Chambers, 17th February 2020
‘Over 130 family lawyers and women’s rights groups have called for Judge Tolson’s continuing cases to be reviewed, following Justice Russell’s condemnation of the family court judge’s treatment of an allegation of sexual assault in a child protection fact-finding trial last month.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th February 2020
‘A family case has recently been the subject of an unusual level of attention from the media, both legal and mainstream, much of it reflecting badly upon the family justice system. I thought I should look at the case, in particular, the lessons that can, or cannot, be learned from it.’
Family Law, 7th February 2020
‘Anyone who films a partner during sex without their consent is committing the criminal offence of voyeurism, the court of appeal has ruled in a case that may affect the Crown Prosecution Service’s apparent reluctance to bring charges.’
The Guardian, 28th January 2020
‘Incidents of men taking “upskirt” photographs of women are being reported on an almost daily basis since tougher new legislation was introduced, with victims known to be as young as 13. The first figures to chart the impact of the Voyeurism Offences Act show that almost one victim a day has contacted police to report being targeted since the law came into effect in April last year.
Daily Telegraph, 10th January 2020
By which we mean: some that we did miss blogging about. With apologies and better late than nevers, here’s a round-up of three recent(ish) cases worthy of note. In R (Open Rights Group) v SSHD digital campaigners Open Rights Group and The3million (campaigning on behalf of so many EU Citizens living in the UK) challenged the immigration exemption – one of the few new features in the DPA 2018 that strengthens the controller’s hand – as incompatible with fundamental charter rights to privacy and protection of personal data. They also contended that it was too broad, vague and lacking in the safeguards required by the parent Article 23 GDPR (which enables Member States to enact domestic exemptions).The exemption follows a formula which is familiar from other exemptions, old and new – processing of personal data relating to some public good is exempt from data subject rights, to the extent that the public good is jeopardised by execise of those rights. The immigration-specific exemption is new – as the Secretary of State’s witness explained , ‘where an exemption was required in an immigration context, reliance was placed on the crime exemption contained latterly in s.29 of DPA 1998’. In other words, the Home Office was getting by OK under the old regime, and one aspect of the challenge to the exemption was that the introduction of a measure infringing fundamental rights must be ‘strictly necessary’.
Panopticon, 5th December 2019
‘In this case, an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, the Defendant refused consent to an Early Neutral Evaluation (‘ENE’) hearing. By an order dated 20 May 2019, Parker J therefore declined to order one, on the basis that the court did not have power to do so in such circumstances where consent to an ENE hearing is withheld by one of the parties.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 27th November 2019
‘The issue of whether non-signatories to arbitration agreements can nevertheless be bound by such agreements is one of increasing importance as recourse to arbitration grows. The traditional limits of arbitration as defined by consent have come under increasing pressure given the enthusiasm for arbitration as the preferred means of dispute resolution in the context of international agreements.’
Six Pump Court, 2nd December 2019