And what about a statement of truth and verifications of opinion for advocates (solicitor advocates, bar and lay advisers (McKensie people), such as:
The general civil proceedings form of statement of truth is provided for in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) Part 22. PD22 paras 2.1 and 2.2 says:
(1) I believe that the facts stated in this [name of document: statement of case, defence, other pleading etc] are true.
(2) Any legal principle derived from statute, delegated legislation or common law and any citation of a case has been fully researched by me and represents, I believe) what I say it is. Any opinion expressed is honestly held by me.
(3) I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement or expresses an opinion not genuinely held in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
And we could extend it to journalists too, if it works - maybe?...
I take Celia Kitzinger’s point: merely asserting or wishing it to be so can never be mother to the fact.
Given our two branches of the profession, I would say, wouldn’t I, that only in concert rather than in competition or conflict with Solicitors can this “heavier than air” machine be induced to fly.
Recognition of and amity with “my” branch has long been the only sustainable way forward.
Specifically, the bar needs to embrace the reality of Solicitors’ Higher Court Rights and join in the facilitation of “our” judicial aspirations. For clarity I had NEVER had any such aspirations and in any event, with the NOT -so -big 8-0 behind me I am obviously here championing the cause of my fellows.
And- inevitably- I have to return to the so long rehearsed themes of MORE dosh and the need to “front load” skilled legal scrutiny and action RATHER THAN sustaining the several times over the cost and complexity of tidying up the mess later in the process(es).
As to AI being THE answer? I hae me doubts. When-so far- has that demonstrably worked? TOO often, by far, the MOJ in particular has harkened to the siren voices of those mega-corporations (in a number of fields) who tell the officials and S of S’s and Ministers what they so badly want to hear about much reduced cost for magically good results. The “doctrine” of due diligence has to become far more than just a phrase given a vapid airing BEFORE wishful thinking comes knocking enticingly on the door.
It's extraordinary to say "The family jurisdiction is leading the way in transparency and open justice" when members of the public (like me) have no right to even attend these cases. The 'transparency' rules in family courts extend only to accredited journalists and lawyers who want to observe. Developments in the family courts are of course a welcome improvement on the total secrecy that preceded the new(ish) court reporting pilot but it's a massive overstatement to say that this jurisdiction is "leading the way in transparency". By contrast, the Court of Protection (an entirely separate court of record) has been open to members of the public since 2016. The Open Justice Court of Protection Project has supported thousands of ordinary people to observe hearings, and has published more than 500 blog posts about what we've observed in court hearings. We've also interviewed people involved in proceedings, including the protected person at the centre of the case and they've contributed to blog posts. Admitting journalists to court is all well and good, but the fact is that there aren't enough journalists with enough time available to cover all these important cases. We rarely see journalists in the Court of Protection. It's often said that journalists are the "eyes and ears of the public", but frankly we have our own eyes and our own ears, and unless the public also have access, the courts are NOT transparent or open. The Family courts have a long way to go - and plenty to learn from our experience in the Court of Protection. https://openjusticecourtofprotection.org
And what about a statement of truth and verifications of opinion for advocates (solicitor advocates, bar and lay advisers (McKensie people), such as:
The general civil proceedings form of statement of truth is provided for in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR 1998) Part 22. PD22 paras 2.1 and 2.2 says:
(1) I believe that the facts stated in this [name of document: statement of case, defence, other pleading etc] are true.
(2) Any legal principle derived from statute, delegated legislation or common law and any citation of a case has been fully researched by me and represents, I believe) what I say it is. Any opinion expressed is honestly held by me.
(3) I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement or expresses an opinion not genuinely held in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
And we could extend it to journalists too, if it works - maybe?...
I take Celia Kitzinger’s point: merely asserting or wishing it to be so can never be mother to the fact.
Given our two branches of the profession, I would say, wouldn’t I, that only in concert rather than in competition or conflict with Solicitors can this “heavier than air” machine be induced to fly.
Recognition of and amity with “my” branch has long been the only sustainable way forward.
Specifically, the bar needs to embrace the reality of Solicitors’ Higher Court Rights and join in the facilitation of “our” judicial aspirations. For clarity I had NEVER had any such aspirations and in any event, with the NOT -so -big 8-0 behind me I am obviously here championing the cause of my fellows.
And- inevitably- I have to return to the so long rehearsed themes of MORE dosh and the need to “front load” skilled legal scrutiny and action RATHER THAN sustaining the several times over the cost and complexity of tidying up the mess later in the process(es).
As to AI being THE answer? I hae me doubts. When-so far- has that demonstrably worked? TOO often, by far, the MOJ in particular has harkened to the siren voices of those mega-corporations (in a number of fields) who tell the officials and S of S’s and Ministers what they so badly want to hear about much reduced cost for magically good results. The “doctrine” of due diligence has to become far more than just a phrase given a vapid airing BEFORE wishful thinking comes knocking enticingly on the door.
It's extraordinary to say "The family jurisdiction is leading the way in transparency and open justice" when members of the public (like me) have no right to even attend these cases. The 'transparency' rules in family courts extend only to accredited journalists and lawyers who want to observe. Developments in the family courts are of course a welcome improvement on the total secrecy that preceded the new(ish) court reporting pilot but it's a massive overstatement to say that this jurisdiction is "leading the way in transparency". By contrast, the Court of Protection (an entirely separate court of record) has been open to members of the public since 2016. The Open Justice Court of Protection Project has supported thousands of ordinary people to observe hearings, and has published more than 500 blog posts about what we've observed in court hearings. We've also interviewed people involved in proceedings, including the protected person at the centre of the case and they've contributed to blog posts. Admitting journalists to court is all well and good, but the fact is that there aren't enough journalists with enough time available to cover all these important cases. We rarely see journalists in the Court of Protection. It's often said that journalists are the "eyes and ears of the public", but frankly we have our own eyes and our own ears, and unless the public also have access, the courts are NOT transparent or open. The Family courts have a long way to go - and plenty to learn from our experience in the Court of Protection. https://openjusticecourtofprotection.org
Thousands of members of the public attend as litigants in person. I'm sure the system sells that as open and transparent.