DOCSLIB.ORG

The Judges' Newsletter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Judges' Newsletter The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection A publication of the Hague Volume XX | Summer – Autumn 2013 Conference on Private * International Law Special focus Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and other international child protection instruments The Judges’ Newsletter The Judges’ > Volume XX | Summer – Autumn 2013 XX | Summer – Volume > INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF The Judges’ Newsletter is published biannually by the JUDICIAL ADVISERS Hague Conference on Private International Law under the supervision of Louise Ellen Teitz, First Secretary, and Philippe Lortie, First Secretary, with the assistance of Joëlle Küng, H.E. Justice Antonio Boggiano; former President of the former Legal Offi cer, and Carlo Di Nicola, Legal Offi cer. Supreme Court of Argentina This journal is written by and for judges with the aim of exchanging the information necessary for effi cient judicial co-operation in the fi eld of international child protection. The Honourable Judge Peter Boshier; Commissioner, Law Commission, New Zealand Contact details for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law are as follows: Mr Eberhard Carl, former Judge at the Regional Superior Court at Frankfurt/Main, Germany Hague Conference on Private International Law Permanent Bureau Scheveningseweg 6 The Honourable Justice Jacques Chamberland; Court of 2517 KT The Hague Appeal of Quebec, Canada The Netherlands Tel: +31 (70) 363.3303 Fax: +31 (70) 360.4867 The Honourable Justice James Garbolino; former Presiding E-mail: [email protected] Judge of the Superior Court of California, United States [email protected] of America Website: http://www.hcch.net Ms Catherine Gaudet Bossard; Honouree Judge, former Copyright©2013 Hague Conference on Private International Conseiller to the Court of Appeal of Bourges, France Law All rights reserved. Articles contained herein may be The Honourable Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness; reproduced for educational purposes. No part may, however, former Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland be reproduced for commercial purposes without the express written consent of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague The Honourable Dr Katalin Murányi; Chairperson of the Conference on Private International Law. Civil College, Budapest, Hungary The Honourable Elisa Pérez-Vera; Constitutional Court of Spain The Honourable Judge Adel Omar Sherif; Deputy Chief Justice, Supreme Constitutional Court, Cairo, Egypt The Right Honourable Sir Mathew Thorpe; Associate Member, 1 Hare Court, England and Wales on International Child Protection 1 Table of contents Special Focus Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 2 1 – Introduction, Philippe LORTIE 2 2 – Australia, The Honourable Diana BRYANT AO 3 3 – Belgium, Myriam DE HEMPTINNE 5 4 – Bulgaria, Judge Bogdana JELIAVSKA 6 5 – Canada, The Honourable Justice Robyn M. DIAMOND 7 6 – China (Hong Kong, SAR), Deputy High Court Judge Bebe Pui Ying CHU 9 7 – Cyprus, The Honourable Justice George A. SERGHIDES 11 8 – Dominican Republic, Antonia Josefi na GRULLÓN BLANDINO 13 9 – Finland, Justice Elisabeth BYGGLIN 14 10 – France, Mrs. Isabelle GUYON-RENARD 15 11 – Germany, Judge Sabine BRIEGER 16 12 – Hungary, Judge dr. Márta GYENGE-NAGY 18 13 – Israel, Judge Benzion GREENBERGER 19 14 – The Netherlands, Annette C. OLLAND 20 15 – Panama, Delia P. CEDEÑO 21 16 – Paraguay, María Eugenia GIMÉNEZ DE ALLEN 22 17 – South Africa, The Honourable Mrs Justice Belinda VAN HEERDEN 23 18 – Sweden, Judge Ann-Sofi e BEXELL 24 19 – Switzerland, Daniel BÄHLER 25 20 – United Kingdom (England and Wales), The Right Honourable Lord Justice Mathew THORPE 26 21 – United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), The Honourable Justice Ben STEPHENS 26 Regional Perspectives • The links between Common Law and Civil Law worlds in South American States, Graciela TAGLE 27 International Child Protection Projects • 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights “Building Bridges From Principle to Reality”, 17 - 20 March 2013, Sydney, Australia, The Honourable Justice Robyn M. DIAMOND 29 • Resolutions from the 6th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights 30 • The Euromed Justice III Project – Establishment of a Handbook on Good Practices concerning the resolution of cross-border family confl icts in the Euro-Mediterranean region, Juliane HIRSCH 33 Members of the International Hague Network of Judges 35 Personal Note 39 Newsletter The Judges’ Volume XXVolume 2 The Judges’ Newsletter Special Focus South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)), concentration of jurisdiction Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention regarding child abduction matters was established at the of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child time of the implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Abduction Convention. Finally, jurisdiction was concentrated in a number of States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, 1. Overview France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) after some years of operation of the 1980 Child Abduction By Philippe LORTIE, First Secretary, Permanent Bureau, Convention. Finally, it is interesting to note that in some Hague Conference on Private International Law States, when concentration was attributed to a given court, another level of concentration took place by designating According to an analysis of the Country Profi les under one or more specialised judges responsible for child the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil abduction cases in these courts (Bulgaria, Germany, Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “1980 Child Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom (England Abduction Convention”), more than 40 States Parties to & Wales and Northern Ireland)). Concentration has taken this Convention have concentrated jurisdiction for child place in States with a federal structure (Australia, Canada, abduction matters.1 Despite the high numbers of States Germany and Switzerland) and in pluri-legislative States that have concentrated jurisdiction, no comparative research (Cyprus and Israel). has been undertaken in this area and few detailed accounts exist as to the “who, what, where, when, why and how” In most States (Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, concentration of jurisdiction took place in these States. In Israel, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Sweden and order to know more, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Switzerland), concentration of jurisdiction was established Conference on Private International Law sought articles by the passing of legislation. In a smaller number of for a special issue of the Judges’ Newsletter from Members States (Bulgaria, South Africa and the United Kingdom of the International Hague Network of Judges, from States (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)) concentration of where concentration of jurisdiction has taken place in one jurisdiction was eff ected by Rules of Court or the Code of form or another. The Permanent Bureau was delighted to Civil Procedure, with the designation of specialised judges receive 20 very interesting contributions on this subject, made by administrative decisions of the Lord Chief Justice covering all continents.2 It is hoped that this collection of in the case of South Africa, England & Wales and Northern articles will provide helpful information to States Parties Ireland. In Hungary concentration of jurisdiction was set to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention which have not up by Ministerial Decree. In the Dominican Republic it yet concentrated jurisdiction. was through a resolution passed by the Supreme Court, whilst in Hong Kong SAR it was by way of Ordinance. In The articles that follow highlight many of the advantages Australia, concentration of jurisdiction was established that result from the concentration of jurisdiction, such as: pursuant to a Protocol between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. Finally, in Canada, by creating a - an accumulation of experience among the judges network of judges at both the Provincial and Superior Court concerned; levels, concentration of jurisdiction appears to be taking - the development of mutual confi dence between judges place by way of these judges who have been designated to and authorities in diff erent legal systems; the national networks. - the creation of a high level of interdisciplinary understanding of the 1980 Child Abduction As mentioned above, concentration of jurisdiction very Convention; often takes place within the Family Court (Australia, Cyprus - mitigation of delay in the processing of cases; and Israel) or the Child and Adolescent Court (Dominican - greater consistency in practice by judges and lawyers. Republic, Panama and Paraguay). The High Court was chosen in a few jurisdictions (China (Hong Kong SAR), The articles included in this volume show that South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales concentration of jurisdiction in family law matters was and Northern Ireland)). In some States, jurisdiction was already in place in a number of States (Cyprus, Israel, concentrated with the Court of Appeal (Bulgaria and Panama and Paraguay) before the implementation of Finland) or in the courts of fi rst instance in the jurisdictions the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Thus, when the where the largest courts of appeal are located (Belgium Convention was implemented in these Sates, competence (fi ve courts),
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 GROUNDS for DIVORCE and MAINTENANCE BETWEEN FORMER SPOUSES REPUBLIC of IRELAND Geoffrey Shannon Law Society of Ireland, Dublin
    Grounds for Divorce and Maintenance Between Former Spouses GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE BETWEEN FORMER SPOUSES REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Geoffrey Shannon Law Society of Ireland, Dublin August 2002 A. GENERAL 1. What is the current source of law for divorce? From 1922 to 1937 there was no specific prohibition on the granting of divorce decrees in Ireland. Article 41.3.2º of the Irish Constitution of 1937 introduced such a prohibition and stated that ‘no law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage’. On 24 November 1995, the Irish people, by the slimmest of a majority, voted to remove the absolute Constitutional ban on the dissolution of marriage. Article 41.3.2º was incorporated into the Irish Constitution on 17 June 1996, upon the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill being signed by the President. This Article provides that a court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that: § at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years, § there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses, § such provision as the court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and § any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with. 1 Republic of Ireland On 27 November 1996, the Family Law (Divorce) Act 19961 was passed and came into operation three months thereafter, on 27 February 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Family Court Bill General Scheme (September 2020)
    Family Court Bill General Scheme (September 2020) CONTENTS Part 1 Preliminary and General 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Repeals and amendments 4. Expenses Part 2 Establishment of Family Court 5. Guiding principles 6. Establishment of District Family Court 7. Creation and alteration of District Family Court districts 8. Jurisdiction of District Family Court 9. Sittings of District Family Court 10. Proceedings in District Family Court 11. Establishment of Circuit Family Court 12. Creation and alteration of Circuit Family Court circuits 13. Jurisdiction of Circuit Family Court 14. Sittings of Circuit Family Court 15. Proceedings in Circuit Family Court 16. Establishment and constitution of Family High Court 17. Jurisdiction and sittings of Family High Court 18. Family Law Rules Committee Part 3 Jurisdiction 19. Transfer of proceedings from District Family Court to Circuit Family Court 20. Amendment of Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 21. Amendment of Family Home Protection Act 1976 22. Amendment to Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 23. Amendment of Family Law Act 1981 24. Amendment of Status of Children Act 1987 25. Amendment of Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989 26. Amendment of Child Care Act 1991 27. Amendment of Maintenance Act 1994 28. Amendment of Family Law Act 1995 29. Amendment of Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 30. Amendment of Protection of Children (Hague Convention) Act 2000 31. Amendment of Civil Registration Act 2004 1 32. Amendment of Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 33. Amendment of Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 34.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan Was Suspended by President General Musharaff in March Last Year Leading to a Worldwide Uproar Against This Act
    A Coup against Judicial Independence . Special issue of the CJEI Report (February, 2008) ustice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the twentieth Chief Justice of Pakistan was suspended by President General Musharaff in March last year leading to a worldwide uproar against this act. However, by a landmark order J handed down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Chaudhry was reinstated. We at the CJEI were delighted and hoped that this would put an end to the ugly confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. However our happiness was short lived. On November 3, 2007, President General Musharaff suspended the constitution and declared a state of emergency. Soon the Pakistan army entered the Supreme Court premises removing Justice Chaudhry and other judges. The Constitution was also suspended and was replaced with a “Provisional Constitutional Order” enabling the Executive to sack Chief Justice Chaudhry, and other judges who refused to swear allegiance to this extra­constitutional order. Ever since then, the judiciary in Pakistan has been plunged into turmoil and Justice Chaudhry along with dozens of other Justices has been held incommunicado in their homes. Any onslaught on judicial independence is a matter of grave concern to all more so to the legal and judicial fraternity in countries that are wedded to the rule of law. In the absence of an independent judiciary, human rights and constitutional guarantees become meaningless; the situation capable of jeopardising even the long term developmental goals of a country. As observed by Viscount Bryce, “If the lamp of justice goes out in darkness, how great is the darkness.” This is really true of Pakistan which is presently going through testing times.
    [Show full text]
  • Punjab Judicial Academy Law Journal
    Punjab Judicial Academy Law Journal June, 2020 Copyright © 2020 by PUNJAB JUDICIAL ACADEMY 2 Punjab Judicial Academy Law Journal (PJALJ) Published by: The Punjab Judicial Academy 15-Fane Road, Lahore Tel: +92-42-99214055-58 Email: [email protected] www.pja.gov.pk 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Editorial Team of this first volume of the Punjab Judicial Academy Law Journal wish to thank Professor Dr. Dil Muhammad Malik, former Principal and Dean Faculty of Law, Punjab University Law College, Lahore, Dr. Khursheed Iqbal, AD&SJ, Mardan, Dr. Muhammad Ahmad Munir Mughal, In-charge Publications/Deputy Editor, Islamic Studies, IIU, Islamabad and Dr. Shahbaz Ahmad Cheema, Assistant Professor, Punjab University Law College, Lahore for their assistance in the publication of the this Journal. 4 EDITORIAL TEAM Patron-in-Chief: Honourable Mr. Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore / Chairperson, Board of Management, Punjab Judicial Academy Patrons: Honourable Mr. Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, Member, Board of Management, Punjab Judicial Academy Honourable Mr. Justice Shehram Sarwar Ch., Member, Board of Management, Punjab Judicial Academy. Editor-in-Chief: Mr. Habibullah Amir, Director General, Punjab Judicial Academy Editor: Mr. Muhammad Azam, Director (Research & Publications), Punjab Judicial Academy Member Editorial Board: Syed Nasir Ali Shah 5 C O N T E N T S (1) A REVIEW OF THE BOOK “FAMILY LAWS IN PAKISTAN, BY MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR ABBASI AND SHAHBAZ AHMAD CHEEMA, KARACHI: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,2018” 7 Justice (R) Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal (2) CLASSIFICATION OF PRISONERS INTO ORDINARY, BETTER, AND POLITICAL CLASS IN THE PRISONS ON ACCOUNT OF SOCIAL STATUS: A DENIAL OF LAW OF EQUALITY 17 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Call for Pakistan's Executive Task Force for Religious Tolerance
    BYU Law Review Volume 2020 Issue 1 Article 8 Fall 9-30-2020 With an Even Hand: The Call for Pakistan’s Executive Task Force for Religious Tolerance J. Clifford Wallace Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Clifford Wallace, With an Even Hand: The Call for Pakistan’s Executive Task Force for Religious Tolerance, 2020 BYU L. Rev. 69 (2020). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2020/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 004.W ALLACE_FIN.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/25/20 11:53 AM With an Even Hand: The Call for Pakistan’s Executive Task Force for Religious Tolerance Hon. J. Clifford Wallace* There are times when the right person is in the right position to cause a dramatic change in the course of the history of a country and its people’s rights. I believe, and others may also, one of those times was June 19, 2014. It was on this day that former Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani of Pakistan filed his authored opinion on behalf of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, blazing a new trail in his country’s decades’ long struggle dealing with minority religious rights. It may seem odd that this has been such a problem in Pakistan.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING up the FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED to CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction
    J. Doughty: Family Courts – what happened to Children’s rights? 10 CIL 1 OPENING UP THE FAMILY COURTS – WHAT HAPPENED TO CHILDREN’S RIGHTS? Julie Doughty? Introduction The principle of open justice underlies public accessibility to courts and accountability of decision-making through publicity and freedom of infor- mation. This is modified in family proceedings, especially where children are involved and we shy away from the idea of ‘trial as a public spectacle’.1 In the leading early 20th century case upholding the principle even in mat- rimonial disputes, matters affecting children were excepted as ‘truly pri- vate affairs’.2 However, the law is now in the process of being reformed to bring family courts more into line with other types of courts in England and Wales. The consultation process that led to the changes included com- mitments to take the views and interests of children and young people into account. Not only do these commitments remain unmet, but the proposed changes pose a number of new challenges to children’s rights and welfare. In December 2008, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, announced to Parliament that court rules would be changed to allow representatives of the media to attend family court pro- ceedings, as of right, which they had previously been unable to do.3 This announcement coincided with the publication of Family Justice in View: Ministry of Justice Response to Consultation.4 The decision on media atten- dance came as some surprise to observers, because it contradicted an
    [Show full text]
  • Floreat Domus 2011
    ISSUE NO.17 april 2011 Floreat Domus BALLIOL COLLEGE NEWS Special Feature: More than money Three Balliol Old Members talk about aid work People-powered politics Master on the move Stop Press: Election of New Master Balliol College is very pleased to announce that it has offered Contents the Mastership of the College Welcome to the 2011 to Professor Sir Drummond Bone (1968), MA DLitt DUniv edition of Floreat Domus. (Glas) FRSE FRSA, and he has accepted. The formal election will be in Trinity Term. contents page 28 Putting Margate Professor Bone will take up the back on the map post this October. For more page 1 College news The new Turner Contemporary information, go to www.balliol. page 6 Women at Balliol gallery, involving three Old Members ox.ac.uk/news/2011/march/ election-of-new-master page 8 College success page 30 In the dark without page 9 Student news nuclear power? Roger Cashmore and David Lucas page 10 Student success discuss the future of nuclear power Special feature Page 20–23 Page 39 A map of the heart page 12 page 32 Great adventurers 50th anniversary of Denis Noble’s The amazing trips made by Sir ground-breaking paper Adam Roberts and Anthony Smith Talking science page 13 page 33 Bookshelf in the centre of Oxford A selection of books published page 14 The Oxford by Balliol Old Members Student Consultancy page 34 Master on the move: page 15 The Oxford conversations around the world Microfinance Initiative Andrew and Peggotty Graham talk about their round-the-world trip Features Development news page 16 People-powered politics
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Constitutional Law
    1 ERASMUS SUMMER SCHOOL MADRID 2011 IRISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Martin Kearns Barrister at Law Historical Introduction The Treaty of December 6, 1921 was the foundation stone of an independent Ireland under the terms of which the Irish Free State was granted the status of a self-governing dominion, like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Although the Constitution of the Ireland ushered in virtually total independence in the eyes of many it had been imposed by Britain through the Anglo Irish Treaty. 1 The Irish Constitution of 1922 was the first new Constitution following independence from Britain but by 1936 it had been purged of controversial symbols and external associations by the Fianna Faíl Government which had come to power in 1932.2 The Constitution of Ireland replaced the Constitution of the Irish Free State which had been in effect since the independence of the Free State from the United Kingdom on 6 December 1922. The motivation of the new Constitution was mainly to put an Irish stamp on the Constitution of the Free State whose institutions Fianna Faíl had boycotted up to 1926. 1 Signed in London on 6 December 1921. 2 e.g. under Article 17 every member of the Oireachtas had to take an oath of allegiance, swearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the Monarch; the representative of the King known as the Governor General etc. 2 Bunreacht na hÉireann an overview The official text of the constitution consists of a Preamble and fifty articles arranged under sixteen headings. Its overall length is approximately 16,000 words.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards
    CONTACT DETAILS Mrs Baljeet Basra Professional Standards Manager ILEX Professional Standards Ltd Kempston Manor Kempston Bedford MK42 7AB Tel: 01234 845776 07792 774937 Email: [email protected] ILEX Professional Standards Ltd company registration number: 6712409 CILEx company registration: RC000850 Page 1 Page 2 CONTENTS PART 1 – Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….……… 5 PART 2 – CILEx, IPS and CILEx members ……………………………………………………… 13 PART 3 - Regulatory objectives & better regulation principles…………………………… 31 PART 4 - Qualification scheme……………………………………………………………………… 51 PART 5 - Entity regulation……………………………………………………………………………… 75 PART 6 - Outcomes focused regulation………………………………………………………… 147 PART 7 - Compliance with s.112 & s.145 Legal Services Act 2007…………………… 175 PART 8 - Enforcement arrangements…………………………………………………………… 183 PART 9 - Indemnification arrangements………………………………………………………… 193 PART 10 – Compensation arrangements……………………………………………………… 205 PART 11 – Delivery of the scheme ……………………………………………………………… 211 Page 3 Page 4 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 INTRODUCTION Page 5 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION PART 1 – INTRODUCTION THE APPLICATION 1. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 (the Act). In accordance with the Act CILEx has separated its regulatory functions from its representative functions by delegating its regulatory functions to ILEX Professional Standards Ltd (IPS). 2. CILEx awards rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives and Associate Prosecutor members; and rights to conduct litigation to Associate Prosecutor members. 3. This application is made, in accordance with rules issued by the Legal Services Board under Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the Act, by IPS to the Legal Services Board (LSB) for approval to amend its regulatory arrangements for CILEx to grant rights to conduct litigation to Chartered Legal Executives; and rights of audience to Chartered Legal Executives who obtain rights to conduct litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems
    rri Evaluation of Specialist Domestic Violence Courts/ Fast Track Systems Dee Cook Mandy Burton Amanda Robinson Christine Vallely March 2004 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the representatives from all five sites of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police, the Magistrates’ Courts Service, Witness Service, Derby City Partnership, Leeds Inter-Agency Partnership, Cardiff Women’s Safety Unit, Standing Together, HALT, ADVANCE, Eaves, West Yorkshire Probation Service, Wolverhampton Criminal Justice Support Services Co-ordinator and The Haven. This study could not have been completed without the cooperation and efforts of CPS staff and prosecutors who, on top of their already busy schedules, assisted with data collection. We are very grateful to all those at the agencies listed above for their time and their views. We should also like to thank our research assistants Jasmin Tregidga, Anna Clancy, Kulbir Kaur and Angela Morgan for their work in coding and entering the data from the CPS files. List of Abbreviations and Common Terms ABH – it is an offence under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Advocates/advocacy support: Through victim support workers Bail – Period of adjournment. Can be imposed by the Court and the Police. Can be conditional or unconditional. Bindover – specify a sum of money over a specific period of time that requires defendants to keep the peace CJU – Criminal Justice Unit. This is a term that applies to both the Police and the CPS office that deals with a particular Magistrates Court area. CJS – Criminal Justice System Cracked trial – This is a case, which has been set down for trial, but the case has been terminated on the day of trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Floreat Domus 2013
    ISSUE NO.19 MAY 2013 Floreat Domus BALLIOL COLLEGE NEWS THE ANNIVERSARY YEAR Contents Welcome to the 2013 edition of Floreat Domus. News PAGE 1 College news PAGE 32 Educate, inform, entertain Student news PAGE 13 Phoebe Braithwaite speaks to two Page 7 Page 1 alumni in the world of television Features and sheds light on the realities of the industry COLLEGE FEATURES: Page 17 A lasting legacy This Week at the PAGE 34 PAGE 19 in cosmochemistry Cinema Alice Lighton shows how Grenville Tim Adamo’s winning entry in Turner has contributed to our Balliol’s satire writing competition understanding of the solar system PAGE 20 Science and progress: and the universe growing synthetic graphene PAGE 36 Olympic reflections Jamie Warner explains how growing Richard Wheadon remembers the a synthetic version has allowed Melbourne Olympic Games and an Oxford team to study the other rowing triumphs fundamental atomic structure of a material PAGE 38 Sustainability at the Olympic Park OTHER FEATURES: Featuring sustainability expert Dorte PAGE 22 Domus Scolarium de Rich Jørgensen, who helped make Balliolo 1263–2013 the London 2012 Olympic and As we celebrate the College’s 750th Paralympics Games the greenest anniversary, John Jones reflects on Games ever changes since 1263 PAGE 41 Facing the 2020s: Pages 36–37 Pages 22–25 PAGE 26 Global Balliol: Sydney adventures in resilience Two Old Members tell us why Alan Heeks describes a project Sydney is a great place to live aimed at achieving systemic change and work by developing ‘community resilience’ PAGE 28 The ethics of narrative PAGE 42 Bookshelf non-fiction A round-up of recently published Jonny Steinberg talks about what books by Old Members readers expect from an author when the subject of the book is a real, Development news living person PAGE 44 Ghosts, gorillas and PAGE 30 Memories of a Gaudies, as the Development Romanian childhood Office takes to Twitter Alexandru Popescu talks to Carmen Bugan about her relationship with PAGE 46 Benefactors to Balliol her native country involved.
    [Show full text]