Interference with a prisoner’s correspondence with his mother and refusal to allow visits from his wife and child will contravene article 8 of the Convention unless it was in accordance with the law. Domestic law has to indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion on public authorities to ensure that individuals were afforded the protection entitled under the rule of law in a democratic country.
|
A M needed permission to appeal against the decision of a judge to take no action and to refuse to commit the F to prison for 66 breaches of residence/contact orders relating to their children.
|
The court would only make a care order following final hearing if it had before it all the relevant information. The M of the child would have an opportunity to present any evidence as to her change in circumstances at final hearing.
|
In a case of serious and persistent breaches of a non-molestation order, a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment (imposed under the FLA ‘96) was not manifestly excessive. For cases warranting sentences at the higher end of the range, proceedings should be brought under the PHA ’97 rather than FLA ’96.
|
A court considering a s.10(9) CA ’89 application could undertake a general assessment of its merits and nature. Where it related to a child subject to adoption proceedings, the court had to have regard to the law relating to the circumstances in which a contact order could be made.
|
Where life-threatening injuries were inflicted on a child such that the s.31 CA ’89 threshold criteria were met, there had to be exceptional circumstances for a judge to subsequently decide that these criteria had not been satisfied in relation to that child’s sibling.
|
Where declaratory relief was sought under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to an adult lacking mental capacity, the proceedings should be commenced under the alternative procedure for claims under Pt 8 CPR.
|
In the circumstances, owing to the parents unreasonably withholding their consent to adoption of their children, and to the advantages of adoption being overwhelmingly strong, their consent was dispensed with. A reasonable parent would have recognised that the children’s welfare was the decisive factor and would have put aside self-interest and desire.
|
An order that the children be returned to Ireland to live with their M was recognised and enforced where F had failed to establish that enforcement of the order would be manifestly incompatible with English law principles or that changes in circumstances meant that the order was manifestly no longer in accordance with the children’s interests.
|
An order for capital provision of £175,000 under Schedule 1 was held not to be plainly wrong or outside the boundaries of reasonable disagreement where the DJ had found the father’s evidence to be unsatisfactory and concluded he and his wife had assets of over £1 million. The order for periodical payments of £500pcm was held to be plainly wrong.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |