Hello. Welcome, everybody. My name Softer. Mahmoud. And I'm pleased to welcome you to Session four off this two hour session where we're looking at domestic abuse on fact funny hearings in private Children. Law matters through data law. So you know that in this session this is the fourth and final session. We're looking at some of the practical this is involved in looking at into relationship between allegations of domestic abuse. When one is applying for orders related to private Children or proceedings on you've got allegations of domestic abuse. So we've been looking a fair bet at the use off on following off practice direction 12 j. We've looked at what? That is, how it works. We've looked at the concept of parental involvement. We've looked at the position with some of the developing case law in terms of, for example, interim contact and also risk assessments. What I'm going to be doing today is looking specifically at the position s surrounding the finding of fact hearings, in particular, whereby we'll be looking at the conduct of these hearings will be looking at some of the developing on difficult decisions that judges haven't having to be making in relation to these matters and then really going forward in terms of what proposed changes. They are by the domestic peace building going forward. So we look at somebody proposed changes there. So just to put this into context, let's say we've got a case where and for Father on Dhere seeks contact with his Children. Let's say the mother is blocking the contact and Mother is raising allegations of domestic abuse. As we said in the previous session caught May. Then, based on the need to consider practice direction 12. J list a matter for finding a factoring so they'll be corroborative. Evidence filed will be looking at first hand evidence being being available if possible. One has to look at a time estimate. One has to make sure the matter is listed so as to enable the matter to be testing the evidence going forward. But they wanted the issues we need to ask ourselves is what do we do in terms of testing the evidence where wonder parties concerned maybe a litigant in person on us? Exactly. The issues that have been a to four off many of these decisions over the last few years, such as in this case of PS on BP, This'll was a 2018, a family division of the high Court decision handed down by Mr Justice Hayden Onda. This looked specifically at the issue surrounding matters relationship cross examined by cross examination by the alleged perpetrator in Children cases off this kind Andi just to put this into context. And this was then a private Children or case whereby the father here saw contact with his three year old S O. He applied for child arrangements to enable him to spend time with or otherwise have contact with the child the mother was and had been living with the mother hitherto on. The mother opposed the father having any contact with a charge. He alleged domestic abuse. So, as we said earlier, the court applied practice direction toe RJ on felt in the circumstances that if anyone, um or the allegations that mother raised were found, then it would have a bearing on the substance of application before the court off Father's application. A child arrangements. So Mother's lawyers had prepared a Scot schedule, as we mentioned earlier. Remember, that's a very useful way off. Pulling together a in a tabular format. Thea allegations on cross referencing to that with a view to then setting out the finals that are sought and and they would have been a response to that by Father. Then any agreement with the view today enabling the court to consider that the father was acting in person. Onda He was that, in fact, a serving police officer facing related casinos in a criminal court on because he was a police officer. He has his line of duty. He was, of course, therefore accustomed to cross examining. And that's quite important, I suggest, in this case, because he would have some of the skills, the ability to be able to effectively cross examine which many lay parties may not have. Onda The mother had raised number of allegations. In fact, she raised six allegations. But the court only wished for her to try to to most significant and two of the six allegations that mother sought to therefore do seven it's on and to seek findings on where one mother alleged that the father had attempted to strangle her on. Secondly, she had alleged that the father had raped her, so you can see two very serious allegations that that mother was raising on the facts. Now how did the court decide on the issue of not allowing father to cross examine? Because that's really one of the one of the issues here in that if you look at paragraph five of the judgment, his Lordship said that when the applicants legal team and they opened a case, of course, they were then seeking findings given a given its their case. The tragedy immediately interjected on stage that the father was not going to be allowed to cross examine mother in those circumstances and that somewhat did take the father by surprise. Hey, had already prepared his cross examination mention as as we said, he was a serving police officer. So you already had his cross examination ready and lined up, and he wanted to cross examining the circumstances. Andi, um, this is where the trial judge said, Well, I'm not going to let you cross examining the circumstances on, but this is where the court did refer to previous authority. In particularly was this case of Ri a, a minor fact finding unrepresented parties 2017 decision whereby in that case, the court had stated that they would allow the father to cross examine mother directly. But the father would not be allowed to be present in the courtroom as he was doing so. Instead, he would be permitted to cross examine through video link but the court and nonetheless permitted the father to cross examine directly through video link on. The mother did have on the facts of that case, uh, permission to have her back turned to the video screen so that she did not have to engage in theme the, uh, with the father in those circumstances. But in that case, even with the safeguards, the court, in that case off a had said that they found how disturbing it was to have to watch Mother being cross examined about something very delicate and personal in her life by, in this case, the father. In that case, he was the direct cause off the state that she was in. So because of that the first instance, judge referred to that case. We A on therefore immediately interjected to take the view that this man should not be allowed to cross examined on this, perhaps therefore highlighted one of the difficulties in this case about really the challenges that face litigants in person. In cross examining this has been, as as you can imagine, one of the troubling areas in Children or proceedings in private Children or cases where for many, many years now in cases where, say, the non resident parent has in this case, the father seeks contact with his child if he was not able to get public funding because he has not been able to satisfy the court on the evidence requirements through last board Legal aid, sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act of 2012 if he couldn't get public funding on the means. But he may on the merits, he may not be upset. If I that under means it may have Bean, then what does he do? If he can't afford a lawyer, he effectively what was left to how to deal with the case himself. Sadly, in family cases, for a long time we've been trying to go down the route of trying to get funding by the HMC ts but the Lord Chancellor's Department to try and enable an advocate to be made available to assist the litigant in person in these circumstances. But unfortunately that has not been forthcoming. So that's one of the difficulties in this case in relation to enabling one to want to look at that on this is where what specifically does practice direction 12 j provide in terms off cross examination? Well, if you look at paragraph 19, for example, our practice direction 12 j that specifically provides at that the court needs to when they are looking at assisting the victim of domestic abuse, the court needs to consider what support the alleged victim requires. I still fact finding hearing in order to give the evidence, but also, if you look at paragraph 19, subsection one a practice direction 12 j that requires for the court to consider what support the alleged perpetrator needs in order to have a reasonable opportunity to cross examine the the the perpetrating this case and also to Chinese. The evidence sort of court has to look at what supporters be given to give them a reasonable chance off challenging at the actual evidence. And if you look at paragraph 28 off pack Distraction 12 Jane particular. The court that goes on to say that the person must need to identify which questions would need to be asked off. The victims, so asked ensuring that the allegations are put properly, responded to the finding of fact. Here in can, of course, be a very much an inquisitorial approach, and each party can be asked to identify what questions they wish to ask you together, party and this set out or confirming sworn evidence. Their version of this disputed facts on the judge should be prepared where necessary and appropriate to conduct the questioning of the witnesses on behalf of parties in that regard. So that's certainly one of the things that course said one has to be looking at when you're looking at these types of cases. And this is where, as you'll appreciate, there is a limit to what they say Mackenzie friend could be doing in these circumstances. Because, of course, even with the Mackenzie friend, there is a limit to what they could do. McKenzie friend could not be required to ask questions as they were always there to support or not to act as their advocate. So what did the judge then, due to deal with cross examination on behalf of on behalf? The father with the trial judge here at the first instance, Judge here said, in light of practice, Direction 12 j, for example, paragraph 19 in particular, the trial judge took the view that the only option available was for him to take it upon himself to carry the burden off the cross examination on, therefore, to put the questions to mother on behalf off the father. So that's what uh, the tragedy felt Andi was necessary. Unreasonable in the circumstances on How did the judge actually do that dinner? So to trial Judge is going to be there for be putting those questions, uh, to the mother in these circumstances. How do you do it? Well, when the father, he said that he had prepared questions in his line of work as a police officer, he had proposed line of questioning, which is similar to how he would have dealt with it in the criminal proceedings. Hey wanted to show, for example, inconsistencies between what the mother was dating and what was in the other forms of evidence on before he wanted to do a bust form off cross examining. But the father said that in fact, the judge, having had taken the responsibility of asking the mother questions was such that the father's questions as insofar as the way in which the judge put them to Mother were somewhat superficial. There were oversimplified and effectively repeated, uh, what the mother was saying so as to minimize their impacts on, he suggested. The father suggested that the judge into cross examination was repeatedly summarizing the mother's answers and effectively reading from the mother's own witness statement rather than actually robustly coming out a cross examination, which is what Father suggested, that both he if he was allowed to do so. And indeed, any other reasonable advocate who may have been appointed on his behalf would have wanted to do so. You can see Father was raising these very, very important issues about, uh, certainly fairness on. That's where funnies were made and Father sought to appeal. So he did appeal on, in fact, on appeal, Mr Justice hating dictator view that the father had demonstrated at that the hearing fell short off standards off fairness. Uh, the uh father had also alleged that the judgment was very short. The judges said they had been overwhelming. Evidence of the allegations on the father was referred to as being deceitful or dishonest and dishonorable. But really, there was no substance to these allegations having had being made out on the facts. And therefore the father felt that this case demonstrated that that the judge had come to these evaluations without being able to be be able to justify them. Andi, uh, this is where his Lordship said, Well, we are obviously a very difficult position at the moment because there is still no funding available to have an advocate appointed to assist litigants in person in these circumstances. So therefore, going forward, what are we to do on this is where going forward until we do have such assistance available. His lordship said that there are number of things that we should be thinking about by way of observations for future cases. And firstly, once it becomes clear to the cord to have a case put to a key factual witness, where the allegations of serious and intimate as in this case where the witnesses themselves are they accuse and accuse it and you must have a grand roots hearing. So that's one of the things you need to be thinking about when you're dealing with private Children or cases and his allegations made of domestic abuse. And we're looking not just that practice direction 12 J. You need to ask yourself that certainly where one is looking at cross examination, uh, to test the evidence, you need a grand Juries hearing Onda. This should in most cases be conducted prior to the hearing off. The factual dispute s a very, very important to ensure that that is built in before the actual finding of fact hearing itself on. But of course, at this grand, who's hearing, uh, it does not need to be a separate hearing to any other hearing in the proceedings, but at this hearing, the court, of course, needs to then consider how are we going to test the evidence? So if, for example, the alleged pope trained in this case a litigant in person, they won't have the benefit off Having advocate, how do we test the evidence? Who does that? He's going to be the judge who carries the burden off putting those questions? Or do we have, say, a child solicitor, for example, which was suggested in this case, or is the father going to be required as per pack destruction 12 j to provide a list of questions on Does that then considered, uh, in that regard on? Then put her judge. So how how will actually that process be carried out on day? One of the other things provided for is the fact that judicial continuity between the grand Juries hearing your substance of hearing is to be regarded as absolutely essential. Uh, the accuser, of course, does bear the burden of establishing the truth of the allegations. So if, for example, Mother is raising allegation domestic abuse, the onus is on her or her legal team to be able to establish those allegations on a balance of probabilities on the court. Must assed part of that in the investigative process must in the courtroom have a painful, his, Lordship said. Must ensure fairness to both sides. They must remind themselves that this obligation must not be compromised in response to witnesses distress in that regard so you can see some very important points being raised in that regard. Andi, With that in mind, it was felt by the court, therefore, pulling this together, that there is no presumption that individual facing the accusations will automatically be barred from cross examine the accuser. In every case, the judge needs to consider whether the evidence was like to be dim. Initiative conducted. Buddy accused on would be likely to be approved for prohibition on direct cross examination was directed. So there was almost this misunderstanding that it seemed to be the case that there was a presumption against allowing, in this case, the father from cross examine the mother. And that's not the case. There's no presumption of that nature. I look at the domestic abuse bill shortly and you'll see what changes that are bringing in. But certainly currently, there is no such presumption on that. The court does need to ask themselves if we do permit their litigant in person. The alleged perpetrated a cross examine. How is that going to diminish? Uh, the evidence body, but accused Andi, is it likely to be improved if we prohibit that cross examination from that person? So therefore, that has to be wait up where the court does form the view from the evidence that cross examination of the alleged victim runs the real risk of being abusive. So, for example, here, if the father was going to be cross examining and the manner, the tone, the way the manner in which he does that could be seen as abusive to the mother. In the circumstances, then the court should bear in mind that the impact of the core process is likely to resonate adversely in the welfare of the Children. Of course, that has to be a way to poor so on. The judge should never be constrained to put every question to the late party that that DeLay party seeks, uh, to asking those circumstances. So if the judge is going to be taking the task of asking the questions that the judge should not be reluctant to put those questions and cross examination, UH is, of course, dynamic by its very nature. The judge will have to certainly make sure that it's the judge's robust in the circumstances and coming at the cross examination. So you can see a number of key shoes that have been raised, certainly until we do have changed. Brought about as a result off the changes which are talking about short in relation to the domestic abuse bill right just before I look then at the proposed changes by the domestic peace bill. There's another more recent case earlier this year, which is where they have noticed the case of J H and M F. This'll was a 2020 decision handed down by Miss Just was so sitting in the family division of the High Court on that this case was on appeal arising following a finding a factoring in a private Children or case whereby there was an application by the father for chart arrangement spending time. And so you can see thesis is really similar to a lot of the cases would be looking at where allegations off abuse have being made on a party to nonresident parent is seeking contact. Now. In this case, there had been allegations of domestic abuse, including a very serious sexual assault. The mother was represented. The father was underrepresented, but he did have the benefit of a Mackenzie friend Andi Here, as from what we've just seen, what appears and BP case, the judge decided to carry out the cross examination of the mother on behalf cross examination of mother saw on behalf to Father. So that was done. It's that shit sound. Behalf of their father was supposed to the mother. Now, one of the things his Lordship did say in this case was that when it comes to public funding issues such as in a case like this, then this was another example off the difficulties that litigants and personal suddenly find themselves in where they're not not able to satisfy the lesbo requirements. They are not able to get funding in these circumstances. And therefore, uh, they are having to, uh, certainly attenders litigants in person. And and they are faced with the court looking at how the court is going to be testing the evidence going forward, uh, in terms off, then limiting over with six severely restricting the ability of that person to be able to cross examine, Uh, the other person concerned Andi with that in mind by her background is this was a case where Mother, when she was 8 17, But the father went down a relationship. There had been complaints made by mother off fathers founded abusive behavior. There, inst instance of abuse had been raised in a child together, who was now aged just under one years of age. Police records demonstrated continuing domestic abuse, and the father had been arrested for various offenses, including battery, and he had been released on bail. Mother had called the police. She later retracted Her statement. Under referral had also may be made to social services because of the allegations. Onda, the father, had also been arrested for three offensive controlling and coercive domestic abuse. That's a some of you were no subject the offenses under Section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act on He was interviewed under caution about that fence off and also the sexual assault by penetration under the Sexual Offenses Act so you can see some very serious allegations that would be made. Onda Father later sought chart arrangement Spending time with Andi. Uh, it had been some time since the mother had left her father. She was in a refuge on his bail. Conditions had been removed. He was known to the police on the father. BC behavior towards the mother continued in that regard. Now, in terms of the listing of the matter for finding a fact, there were number of failings in that regard. Firstly, the special measures the special measures were not implemented by the first instance. Judge Andi in particular, her Ladyship, said that the mother was a vulnerable witness that was made very clear on the facts. Andi, Uh, certainly screens had been applied for to be made available for the mother, but the judge took the step, uh, contrary to use a procedure that regard of ordering that the mother give evidence from the council's role. But rather than using the witness box and the screens, eso the courted taken the view that not only did not follow Part three a and packed destruction 3838 and I mentioned earlier, but also really didn't give adequate reasons for doing so under circumstances. So they thought that was that was an issue in itself. How did the father actually give evidence on the facts with her father, then proceeded. The judge proceeded to order that the father should also give evidence from counsel's role. Aun said that it was fair to create, balanced in between the father and the mother in terms of both of them, then being able to give evidence against each other from cancers. Role on this was without any application, having had even being made by the father in that instance. Okay, on the father was the neighbor to give evidence sitting next to his Mackenzie friend, who, it was suggested, was able to assist the father in the answers when he was being cross examined on day, it was argued that it was argued, therefore, that the father was given an unfair advantage in that regard. One of the other key concerns was that it was suggested that the judge had failed to follow practice. Direction 12 j, The mother said that the trial judge had failed to apply the provisions in practice. Traction. 12 j As you remember the first session I took you through the definition of domestic abuse, I took you through a definition of controlling behavior. Andre Coercive behavior on the mother argued that judge failed to apply these definitions and keep these in mind when hearing the defining a fact hearing so you can see some very, very serious allegations that would be made here. In that regard, uh, Mother's legal team raised the fact that the trial judge failed to follow the guidance, failed to apply these definitions in any part off the judgment. Also on also failed to really take into account the reports on the police and the complaints by other people in terms of these allegations of domestic abuse. Now, Mothers Legal Team also claimed that they had Beene constantly interrupted by the first instance court on the fax in terms of their submissions in that regard defining that mother was seeking. They were not made by the trial judge on the fact that it was argued that the judge felt to properly balanced the evidence before the court in terms of Mother's case on what the father was stating in the circumstances on bond in relation to the fact that it was argued that the judge's conclusions inspector controlling coercive behavior on the part of Father were based on the assumption that the use of language could not form a significant part off the base of controlling relationship, which was then famous. Contrary to practice Direction 12 j in that regard, it was also suggested that the judge did not consider the consequences of accepting one particular instant af domestic abuse. So at the first instance, judge did seem to accept that one incident off domestic abuse when the matter had pinned the mother down against the wall. Yeah, was there on that was one incident, but the judge them failed to make any finding on that on day that this was really off of concern itself. It was also suggested that the trial judge was wrong in finding that the child had not been harmed on this'll was considered on appeal to not being safe. Uh, the court was concerned that in relation to the allegation off off this, there was insufficient heaviness to suggest otherwise. Um, here the court had referred to the fact that more force than normal was used when changing the Charles Nappy on this phase was indicative of possible abuse. But no findings were made in that regard. So again, failure to understand and accept the fact that the child had not been harmed. And one of the other things the court did say, is when you've got serious allegations off abuse in this case, serious sexual assault cases in family cases that the court did say that certainly this is but more frequently dealt with appropriately in criminal cases. But in criminal case, in family cases, it was felt that when you have got serious sexual assault matters in family cases, then there is certainly a need to ensure that he should not be minimized as a part of an example of coercive and controlling behavior, and instead they need to be carefully Onda appropriately investigated. So what is the standard proved to be applied on allegations that are being raised as to domestic abuse and then at the fact finding hearing. But the Court Swords court said, Of course it's on the balance of probabilities, and this was make clear in the case of Re be this 2000 and eight case on day it was suggested that the first instance judge had certainly seemed to give the impression off not having it applied that that standard on the fax here So going forward, there were a number of recommendations that were being made her ladyship so that judges in the family courts are regularly required them to make decisions in cases where there is domestic abuse. Sometimes, as in this case, serious sexual assault allegations on there is, of course training that is provided to judiciary on the implementation and use of practice direction. 12 J. Andi um, it was felt that judges in the family court are not routinely under required to undergo training on the appropriate approach to take when considering allegations of serious sexual assault issues of consent. A raised, uh, such training is provided in criminal courts for criminal court judges, but not for family court judges and therefore disease s only one key recommendation that it was felt he's needed under circumstances. So you can see a number of key issues that were being raised in relation to the way which this particular case was dealt with on Day three suggestions on the findings that practice Direction 12 j had not been fully that dealt with in the circumstances. That then brings me on to the final stage of what I wanted to cover in this in this session with you and that is going forward. Where can we see ourselves going forward? And this is where Last year early last year, in January 2019, we had the domestic abuse bill of 2019, as it was then introduced. He he was referred to as transformed a response to domestic abuse, and it was the draft bill alongside the consultation response by the government. Sadly, last year, 2019, as you know, because of a number of features we had obviously Brexit would still have formed the front off a lot of judicial debate. A parliamentary debate. Rather, uh, we had the election in 2019. We had the, uh, the position with preparation of Parliament's all of those factors that had a very big impact on the progress of the domestic abuse bill, which meant that that bill did not make a smudge progress in 2019, as it should have done. The bill was reintroduced earlier this year. So, in fact, the third of March 2020 the bill was reintroduced on as off mid September 2020. The bill has already passed. Now the very stable has a Commons has lost. The first reading was on the seventh of July 2020 and as off mid September 2020 we are waiting for the second reading, the date to be announced. But how then, is this bill going to deal with the problems we've got? Where, as a couple of these cases have highlighted the case of B. P M. P s, for example, in relation to the difficulties that litigants impersonal, facing and not being able to cross examine the alleged accusers where the alleged perpetrator themselves do not have the benefit of public funding. So what do we do in that situation? Going forward? Well, this is where the bill does emphasize that in criminal cases, many of you who made you criminal matters, you'll be aware of Section 36 38. Well, by if in criminal proceedings the defendant is unrepresented, the court can make an order for the defendant to be prevented from cross examined the victim. But here in such situations, the court is in fact, able to appoint a lawyer to represent the defendant in those circumstances. Uh, the family courts have We do not currently have the same express legislative powers in those circumstances s so we don't have that. And instead, the judges are having to use their case management general provisions to prevent a victim from being cross examined. Onda Azul. We've seen with cases we've looked at some times. That would mean, as we saw in the case of PS and BP, that's where the court, well, then sometimes take responsibility upon themselves to cross examine the alleged victim on behalf of the, uh, the accused. Uh, but currently the family court does not have the means by which to appoint a legal representative to represent the victim and carry out a cross examination in that regard. So this is where this bill wants to rectify that, and the aim is to create a legislative prohibition in the family courts, just like we do in the criminal courts. And the government has recognized the importance of doing this in the family court. So this is what sat out now in the draft domestic abuse built to try and remedy. Andi address this point, Andi, even though this was a point that was raised when the bill was first introduced in January 2019, Uh, it has in fact, been updated since then. So what? What the position was last year when this bill was first introduces. If, for example, somebody in family proceedings, uh, has been convicted or cautioned off a specified defense or they are subjected to on injunction and without notice so unnoticed, injunction then. In those circumstances, that person would not be permitted to cross examine the accuser on in other cases. If, by prohibiting them for cross examine, it was going to improve the quality of the evidence. Andi, Andi uh if otherwise, it was going to cause significant distress to the person concerned and they would be prohibited from cross examining. So that's what the bill provided as of March 2020 19. But that has in fact now changed so that now, as of March this year, the government response to the report from a joint committee has even gone further than that. So that this was scrutinized. This bill scrutinized, uh, very much would result that the because select committee concern that was raised was, as for the potential for inconsistency, because too many victims would only be protected at the discretion of the court, i e. The judge would need to be satisfied that if I do allow, say, uh, does the man in the example used earlier to cross examine his former partner then is it gonna lead to the quality of have evidence being diminished? And is it going to cause her significant distress? And it was felt that that really left this very much enhance off the discretion of the judge is to whether whether the person what it would not be allowed to cross examine and in fact, the committee recommended that the mandatory band should be extended saw that it applied where there were other forms of evidence of domestic abuse, just like you do for eligibility for public funding on. In fact, the government has gone with that. So the government acknowledged the committee's concerns in this on. Therefore, they now agree that it is important that victims should have the confidence in the protection afforded. So therefore, what the government did is they accepted this recommendation by the Select Committee on There for the bill. When it was re introduced into Parliament on the third of March, they gave a factor this So now you've got close 59 of the bill, which now includes a new power for the Lord Chancellor to specify evidence that would trigger the automatic ban. So putting that together, what this means, therefore, is a line of this recommendation. Uh, there will now be an automatic trigger where, if there are, if there is evidence of domestic abuse, very much in line with the evidence of abuse to get public funding, that in that situation there will be an automatic ban preventing the accused from cross examine the accuser. In those circumstances, there is still gonna be the retention of discretionary prohibition. But of course, you'll appreciate that. That's not going to be used in many cases. Because if you can certainly evidence the domestic abuse akin to the legal aid eligibility, then more cases and not that will cover the circumstances there. So, going forward, you can see Certainly this will help massively on. Therefore, how would want and deal with this on This is where the bill now is providing that the Lord Chancellor department and H M C T s. We'll be able to provide on advocate to, uh, then be able to put those questions to the victim on behalf off the accused in that situation. So even though they won't beginning league later such to represent them for the entirety of the proceedings, that part of putting those questions to the victim will be covered by, uh, uh, the funding by the Lord Chancellor department so that funding will be made available just like we do have in criminal cases on. Finally, there is a report that's going through. This is the report that was put together earlier this year by the private Law Working Group. It's called Time for change. Need for change. The case for change This was put together by Mr Justice Cobb along who heads up the private law working group on, even though a lot of this has gone to be relating to some of the changes to practice traction. 12 b in relation to child arrangements program in terms of, for example, allocation of private law cases, great use of digitalization on dealing with enforcement, it will also be helpful insofar as looking at the way in which we are addressing and dealing with matters where there are allegations of domestic abuse in private law cases. Again, this will be another feature which would will be of assistance in that regard. Okay, so that brings this session to an end and in fact, the session, the four sessions, looking at this area so you can see in conclusion, we've spent a fair bit of time and looking at the inter relationship between persons who may be seeking chart arrangements, order specified, spending time with otherwise I'm in contact and then looking at when they are allegations of abuse being raised, how we determine that. So we spent a fair bit of time looking at past destruction. 12 j We've looked at domestic abuse, the that very extended definition of that. We've looked at the workings of practice Direction 12 j. We've looked at some of the practical difficulties in permitting the accused off being able to cross examine the accuser Andi going forward. Hopefully some of the remedies with that as a result of the domestic abuse beer which is still currently going through Parliament. Thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope it has been a useful set of sessions for you on. I'll speak to you next time, so thank you very much indeed. Bye for now. Bye.
Webinar
Slides
3062 Users
171 Courses
157 Reviews