Monday 29 June 2015

Record number of prosecutions against women and girls

A BBC article this week reports that a record number of people have been prosecuted for offences categorised as 'violence against women and girls', figures for England and Wales show.

A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) report showed more than 107,000 such prosecutions in the year to April, up 16,000 (18%) on the previous year.

The figures are for crimes 'primarily' against women, but male victims are also included.

The statistics include cases of rape, domestic violence and 'honour' crime.

There is no specific offence of honour-based violence, but it is used by the CPS to describe offences including domestic and sexual violence within families or social groups to 'protect perceived cultural and religious beliefs and/or honour'.

More prosecutions and more convictions are chiefly, it appears, a result of more victims having the confidence to come forward.

It is felt that the increase in the figures may partly be due to the growing use of the internet, which acts as an enabler of crime. In the report, prosecutors said a common theme was the use of the internet to contact potential victims and post indecent images and messages. The 'plus' side of this sinister new phenomenon is that online activity leaves digital traces which can be used by police as evidence.

Nevertheless, the CPS is revising some of its guidance so that prosecutors make the best use of the law to tackle cyber-facilitated abuse and violence.

They'll be reminded, for example, that restraining orders, which are used to prevent victims being harassed in the real world, can also be applied online to stop offenders posting or replying to messages to their victims.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Women's Aid, said the figures showed 'significant progress' had been made in taking domestic violence cases to court.

"This progress must continue until we have a system where women who experience domestic violence have exactly the same level of confidence as victims of other crimes, that they are heard and believed, the system works for them and protects their human right to live free from violence," she said.

At Hopkins Law we have a very experienced team in the field of violence against women. If you are a victim, or know someone who is, please contact us for help.  You can phone us on 029 2039 5888 or email Sally or myself.

Monday 22 June 2015

Court rules that mother can’t use her dead daughter’s eggs

The High Court in London has ruled that a mother cannot use her dead daughter’s frozen eggs because the paperwork was incomplete.

The daughter, named only as ‘A’ in the court case, had her eggs frozen after being diagnosed with bowel cancer at the age of 23.  Her parents say that she had spoken with them about the eggs being used after her death, saying ‘I didn’t go through IVF to save my eggs for nothing’.

Although the daughter consented for her eggs to be stored for use after her death, she did not fill in a separate form outlining how she wished them to be used.

When the mother then sought to retrieve the eggs to seek fertility treatment in the US, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) decided there was insufficient evidence to show the daughter wanted her parents to use the eggs in this way.

The Judge in the case said he was ‘conscious of the additional distress which this will bring to the claimants”.

However, the HFEA said there was no clear evidence A had expressed the wish for her mother to carry her child in the event of her death, saying … ‘the court should be very reluctant to assume that, because this is the proposed course the claimants want, it must inherently follow that it was also what the daughter wanted, in the absence of clear evidence to that effect.’

The mother and her husband could take their case to the Court of Appeal.

This very unhappy situation highlights the importance of instructing professionals - however clear a case you think you may have, it is always, always best to seek legal advice.

If you're unsure as to whether a situation you find yourself in would benefit from our help, just give us a ring or email me.

Monday 15 June 2015

Is it ever right to go on the run with your child?

In the past week you cannot have missed the coverage of the mum who took her son after a custody battle.  Away from the sensationalism of the press stories, I thought it would be worth taking a look at how this all came about and where it went so wrong for the son at the centre of it all.

Rebecca Minnock had a son, Ethan, with Roger Williams,  and when the relationship broke down the parties were awarded joint custody.  However, Ms Minnock did not keep to her side of the arrangement, frequently keeping Ethan away from Mr Williams even though they had both agreed in court to the arrangements.  She also fabricated allegations against Mr Williams in order to ‘frustrate contact’ with his son.

On 27 May this year a district judge ruled Ethan should live with his father after finding Ms Minnock had made false allegations and obstructed contact between the father and son.

It was at this time that Ms Minnock went on the run with Ethan.  She knew, of course, that this was no way to progress anything - and it may well have made matters worse, as the courts will take a dim view of anyone so obviously undermining a court order.

Going forward, it will be up to the courts to decide how best to allow Ms Minnock contact with her son.  The overall  is what is in Ethan’s best interests.

As a Resolution accredited specialist in Children Law, I would have advised Ms Minnock not to take the law into her own hands - the courts have the child’s best interests at heart, and they make their rulings for a reason.  I am also a specialist in the field of child abduction so if you find yourself in Roger Williams' situation, get in touch with me as soon as you can - speed is of the essence.

If you have any children issues that you are concerned about - whether you are a mother, a father or a grandparents, do contact me.

Monday 8 June 2015

'Duped' women head to Supreme Court to overturn divorce settlements

Two women who contend they were ‘duped’ into accepting unfair divorce settlements because their husbands hid assets are heading to the Supreme Court in a bit to get the settlements overturned. If the court rules in their favour, it could pave the way for many more people to seek to re-negotiate settlements and could have far reaching consequences.

The court will decide whether divorce settlements can be re-negotiated if either side is found to have been dishonest, or whether they can only be re-opened if the dishonesty was "material" - meaning it was significant enough to have impacted the settlement decision.

England and Wales, and London in particular, is seen by many as the divorce capital of the world. The reason is that for most marriages of any significant duration, there is a 50/50 split of the couple's wealth.

That means that there is a huge incentive for the person with the wealth not to disclose those assets.
Have the courts have been too tolerant of people not disclosing their assets? If one partner is dishonest should that allow the other partner to re-negotiate the settlement?

In 2010 one of the ex-husbands was convicted of money laundering and jailed for 10 years. At his criminal trial, evidence revealed he had failed to disclose his true wealth in divorce proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that information that emerged at his criminal trial could not be used to overturn the couple's settlement.

The lawyers for the husbands have stated that the settlements were ‘fair and reasonable.’

Monday 1 June 2015

Loophole following pensions changes

If you are divorced but have a claim on your ex-partner's pension, you might want to be aware of this.

After the pension changes in April, those with pensions can take lump sums out in cash.

However, this has led to an unfortunate and unintended consequence in that if the party with the pension does just that, there may be nothing left to pay out to former partners who were allocated a share of that pension under an earmarking order in a divorce settlement.  Earmarking orders were popular with couples who split up more than 15 years ago - the saver kept control of the pension while the pension income was shared.

A spokesman for the Department for Work & Pensions says “Where people have entered into a legal arrangement to give some of their pension saving to another person, then this must be honoured.’  It adds that it will ‘crack down’ on anyone using the loophole.  It is also looking to change the rules.