header-logo header-logo

A gap in the ring fence?

10 January 2008 / Susan Edwards
Issue: 7303 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Profession
printer mail-detail

Does automatic disclosure mean no more refuge in self-incrimination privilege? Susan Edwards investigates

The Family Proceedings (Amendment No 4) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/1976) (FPR)—unlike the former Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1247)— permit disclosure, to police and prosecutors investigating and initiating criminal proceedings, of documents, admissions and inculpatory statements made by parties in care proceedings. This includes the judge’s finding of fact in such proceedings without application to the court.

 

While it may be argued that these changes are merely procedural and have not fundamentally altered any principle of evidence or of justice, courts will now be presented with an increasing number of applications by prosecutors to admit in evidence information and admissions made in care proceedings into criminal proceedings. There is an urgent and pressing need for the jurisprudence on exclusionary discretion in the criminal courts to develop and provide some certainty.

 

SELF INCRIMINATION

In the course of a criminal investigation, and at trial, the suspect/defendant has the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer any question put to him. This

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll