header-logo header-logo

22 September 2017
Issue: 6672 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Tackling domestic abuse

Mandatory requirements for judges to ascertain & record abuse

The definition of ‘domestic abuse’ to be applied by judges has been expanded by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, in a Practice Direction for dealing with vulnerable witnesses.

The revised Practice Direction 12J (PD12J), which was subject to a consultation in the past year, comes into force on 2 October 2017 and applies to all judges, including lay justices, whether in the Family Court or the High Court.

The main change is an expanded definition of what is now referred to as ‘domestic abuse’ rather than ‘domestic violence’.

PD12J also sets mandatory requirements on judges to ascertain and record matters regarding domestic abuse at certain points in the justice process.

Sir James said further adjustment would be required if the proposed legislation restricting cross-examination of alleged victims by alleged perpetrators is enacted. He said, however, that he decided to press on immediately with the revisions, since ‘we cannot await that’.

‘Domestic abuse in all its many forms, and whether directed at women, at men, or at children, continues, more than 40 years after the enactment of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, to be a scourge on our society,’ Sir James said.

Family law solicitor David Burrows said: ‘The disappointing aspect of the PD is it suggests that domestic abuse occurs only in child contact cases. The equivalent of this is needed across all family proceedings; and the revision of the PD—to cover all proceedings where domestic abuse occurs, please—is awaited when the promised cross-examination of complainants by alleged abusers comes in.’

 
Issue: 6672 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll