News News

  • Give someone else a voice

    4 Brick Court's running team took part in the Great South Run (10 miles in Portsmouth on 26th October)on behalf of a favourite charity and your support would be greatly appreciated by the many children who have come to depend on VOICE.  VOICE is a charity entirely dedicated to giving support advice and assistance to the 60,000 children in care in the UK at any one time.

     

    The team from chambers included Jacqui Gilliatt, Louise MacLynn, Francis Cassidy, Lee Pearman and Paul Carver, joined by Jacqui's husband, John Sullivan, his friend David Parkinson and Jacqui's friends Carolyn & Tim Cobbold.

    You can log on to our Just Giving website and translate our pounding the pavements of Portsmouth in to pounds for this charity.

    Alternatively we will be happy to receive cheques made out to Voice at 4 Brick Court.

     

    Click to find out more about VOICE

  • New files on 4bc Website

    We have recently added to our website - the June 2008 updater - the Jargon Buster from A to Z (in  Family Law General) & the Family Law Bibliography (also in Family Law General).

  • Standard of Proof in Care Proceedings

    The House of Lords ruled on 11th June 2008 in an appeal in which three members of  4 Brick Court Chambers appeared before their Lordships on 19th and 20th May 2008. Marianna Hildyard QC and Isabelle Watson represented the Respondent father and Stuart Fuller (led by Stephen Cobb QC of 1 Garden Court Chambers) represented the Appellant children (through their Children’s Guardian). CAFCASS intervened.

  • Domestic Violence Practice Direction

    This Practice Direction came into force on 9.5.08.  See also the comments of Robert Stevens reported on the Family Law Week blog.

  • PLO Guidance for London

    Judge Altman, the Designated Judge for London, has issued an Initial Local Plan for London dated 10th April 2008in respect of the implementation of the Public Law Outline (which is already in force). It applies to the London Care Centre which means the PRFD & Barnet, Kingston & Croydon County Courts & is relevant also to cases transferred into those courts from the FPCs.

Visit our news section for more, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

How We Can Help You Accessibility

How We Can Help You Login

You have been logged out

Don't have an account? Sign up for one

If you've forgotten your password, please click here to reset it.

How We Can Help You How We Can Help You

Standard of Proof in Care Proceedings

The House of Lords ruled on 11th June 2008 in an appeal in which three members of  4 Brick Court Chambers appeared before their Lordships on 19th and 20th May 2008. Marianna Hildyard QC and Isabelle Watson represented the Respondent father and Stuart Fuller (led by Stephen Cobb QC of 1 Garden Court Chambers) represented the Appellant children (through their Children’s Guardian). CAFCASS intervened.

 

Following a six week fact-finding hearing in June/ July 2007, it was the judgment of Charles J that because of the “allegation culture” within the family he was unable to find on the balance of probability either that the alleged sexual abuse had or had not taken place and therefore found that there was a “real possibility” that such abuse had occurred. Charles J made clear his concern that on the law as it stood he was unable to conclude on the basis of that finding that (for threshold purposes) there was a likelihood that the younger children would be sexually abused by the father in the future or (for welfare checklist purposes) that there was a risk of such abuse. The Guardian appealed on behalf of the two younger children.  

 

The appeal was conceded before the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 282) as the challenge was, in effect, to rulings of the House of Lords and permission was granted for an appeal to their Lordships. Before the House the Appellant argued that a finding of a “real possibility” should be capable of establishing a likelihood of future harm for the purposes of establishing threshold.

 

At the close of the Appellants’ case the Judicial Committee (comprising Lord Hoffman, Lord Scott, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker and Baroness Hale) indicated that they did not intend to overrule re H or re M and R.  The law will therefore remain that only a proven past event can found a likelihood or risk of future harm. With respect to the “enhanced cogency” gloss put on the balance of probability test in certain cases, their Lordships indicated that they may wish to revisit this issue and this will no doubt be addressed in their Lordships’ speeches.

 

Download Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 as a PDF document here. 

 

 

Link to judgment on House of Lords website 

 

Date Added: June 11th 2008