?further, how a corrupt, malicious Cafcass report results in NO legal funding (it's a silly court game, anyway.)
ie?? false 'evidence' (untested in court) report from Cafcass - LSC legal aid read and believe (of course, why ever not?!!! - LSC decide 'no prospect' in their innate wisdom - equals no legal representation - equals no prospect of 'equality of arms' (fairness) - so why play the silly court game anyway when v v unlikely to achieve any sensible result - particularly unlikely to reach sensible result (i.e. that actually benefits children) if you are AIP acting in person - do you really want to hand over your children's family life to be decided by a L A W Y E R for heaven's sake, who was possibly abused himself at his boarding school in all likelihood - and said lawyer relies on public forbearance (but who can question?) for his wages.
The Law of Duplicity and Nil Returns. Side-splitting.
Does anybody seriously imagine that (child/s lives) are ever given a truly fair hearing????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, 4 June 2012
Much appreciated. However?
Quality LR/advice is a fallacy, anyway (re. "qualified solicitor")
Of course, my point and purpose for asking is that because LSC/Cafcass 'ultra vires', acting without authority, there is no LR/advice available
(a) because no resources to pay (or desire, effectively) to play the secret court game, and
(b) serious doubt that able/determined LR is in fact available, particularly when competent lawyers (generally) spurn the game playing in (a).
The actuality is that the public, children most of all, are appallingly served. A grain of sense tells us that the 'state' exercises the inbuilt presumption/negativity re. 'warring parents' in order to justify zero legal funding. Thus entirely ignoring what is often the obvious truth - one parent's family life at the mercy of the other 'sick' parent. The pretence that there is no gender bias is staggering.
In summary, of fifteen plus family lawyers examined by me (over 8 years), fourteen of these are effectively cheer leaders for a desperately silly and futile adversarial system. [The fifteenth, naturally, not offering legal aid.]
Who cares for the experience of the end-user whose job does not depend on recycling stupidity?
(And way past fearing adverse opinions for speaking the truth.)
Anyway, thank you for the brief outlet. Very grateful for the points on JR costs.
By all means pass this on to 'central policy' if it might be helpful to the public. It will be appropriately posted on the internet.
Sincerely,
Franz Kafka
On 3 Jun 2012, at 17:49, Hereford Citizens' Advice Bureau wrote:
Thank you for your two further emails. We should, perhaps, have made it clearer in our previous reply that where family law issues have proceeded to litigation, we must advise potential litigants to seek specialist legal advice from a suitably qualified solicitor because our remit and expertise does extend to the detail of family law and so we are unable to provide more than basic initial advice in this area.
Regarding your questions about judicial review, this is also a specialist area of law on which we are unable to advise in detail, and one in which we must advise clients to seek specialist advice. We can answer in limited detail some of your initial questions however:
1 If an application for Judicial Review is refused, the applicant must pay for the court fee and their own costs. If the application is accepted, proceeds to trial and the applicant loses, the court does have the power to order the costs of the defending public body be met by the claimant. In complex cases these can be considerable, hence the caveat that specialist advice is needed prior to considering an application. Costs can also be higher if the pre-action protocol is not followed correctly.
2 We cannot comment on this.
3 As far as we are aware (again, our knowledge of this area is limited) there are no ?automatic? reasons for judicial review cases. There are reasons for which decisions can be challenged but none of these will lead to the automatic acceptance of an application. As explained previously, specialist advice is needed.
4 Costs are generally payable by the losing party, so if an applicant was successful in their claim, the court would have the power to order the public body to pay the applicant?s costs.
A guide on judicial review is available from the justice.gov.uk website which may answer other questions that you have. Unfortunately, we will not be able to provide any further advice on the issue of judicial review, apart from assistance in finding a suitably qualified solicitor.
With regard to your general complaints about the perceived unfairness of the CAFCASS and LSC systems, we will pass these on (in general terms) to our social policy co-ordinator, who will, if appropriate, forward them to the central policy unit.