Justice For Families

I have a copy of the new SIs which are on the JFF site

This applies to County Courts.
http://www.justice-for-families.org.uk/instruments/FP_Rules_857.htm

Frankly although it is a con from the perspective of transparency it does give more people access to the full details of the proceedings. They just cannot talk publicly about them.

Where the problem lies in being table to take up the issues publicly.

John,

Have you thought about JFF reporters, I know there was something in the wind about the possibilities of them.

Just looking at 10.28

10.28.—(1) This rule applies when proceedings are held in private, except in relation to hearings conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiation.

(2) For the purposes of these Rules, a reference to proceedings held “in private” means proceedings at which the general public have no right to be present.

(3) When this rule applies no person shall be present during any hearing other than—
(a) an officer of the court;
(b) a party to the proceedings;
(c) a litigation friend for any party, or legal representative instructed to act on that party’s behalf;
(d) an officer of the service or Welsh family proceedings officer;
(e) a witness;

(f) duly accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations; and

(g) any other person whom the court permits to be present.


I might be a little cross wired here but I thought it was Jack Straws intention for parents to discuss their case with their MP's I cannot seem to see anywhere in the SI's for this option, or do I need Glasses?

Would the MP have to become a Lay Advisor first before the case could be discussed, I know several MP's would not commit themselves if this is indeed the case.
I am sure JFF should be entitled to report on these cases, obviously there's a lot of people would frown on anyone from JFF being present in court.

It would appear also that you now don't need permission to disclose documents to the GSCC for the purposes of making a complaint;

Communication of information for purposes connected with the proceedings

11.4.—(1) A party or the legal representative of a party, on behalf of and upon the instructions of that party, may communicate information relating to the proceedings to any person where necessary to enable that party—

(a) by confidential discussion, to obtain support, advice or assistance in the conduct of the proceedings;

(b) to engage in mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution;

(c) to make and pursue a complaint against a person or body concerned in the proceedings; or

(d) to make and pursue a complaint regarding the law, policy or procedure relating to a category of proceedings to which this Part applies.

(2) Where information is communicated to any person in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) of this rule, no further communication by that person is permitted.

(3) When information relating to the proceedings is communicated to any person in accordance with paragraphs (1)(b),(c) or (d) of this rule—

(a) the recipient may communicate that information to a further recipient, provided that—

(i) the party who initially communicated the information consents to that further communication; and

(ii) the further communication is made only for the purpose or purposes for which the party made the initial communication; and

(b) the information may be successively communicated to and by further recipients on as many occasions as may be necessary to fulfil the purpose for which the information was initially communicated, provided that on each such occasion the conditions in sub-paragraph (a) are met.

I have opened negotiations with various gatekeepers on this. However, the reporters are not as far as I can tell allowed to publish anything which really makes it a bit futile.

Family proceedings held in county courts and the High Court will be open to the media from April 27, Justice Minister Jack Straw announced today.
But journalists who wish to attend such hearings will be required to produce a valid UK Press Card to gain admission, the justice ministry said.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43488&c=1



I love the idea of JFF reporters.
We can't trust those who created this mess to sort it out - so the judiciary and social workers are ruled out.

A body of people, dedicated to reporting on miscarriages of justice - with shared knowledge of the SS tactics used. This shared background knowledge is what could give JFF such a head start.

For some of us, there may be no reason why we can't access the courts as independent "observers" for an MP, I would hope my MP would be one of those who would agree to this.
In which case parliamentary privilege would allow us and the MP's to see the court documents, as well as attend court. The Ministry of Injustice may not have thought this angle through.... so I'd love to see their faces when the penny drops.

But JFF reporters in court, could do a wealth of good.
Turning the injustice we've suffered into a massive force for good.

johnhemming wrote:I have opened negotiations with various gatekeepers on this. However, the reporters are not as far as I can tell allowed to publish anything which really makes it a bit futile.

Understood - but where does it say that reporters are not allowed to publish anything?

It needs to say when they can.

I am liasiing with FNF on this as well.

I'll read this in detail when I have more time.

It''l be a little here a little worse here overall it'll be about the same or worse (my guess)