How do I appeal a decision in the family court

If you are unhappy with a decision made by the family court, you may be able to appeal the decision. Here are the steps you would generally need to follow:

1. Seek legal advice: It is highly recommended that you seek legal advice from a solicitor or barrister who specializes in family law before deciding to appeal a decision. They can advise you on the strength of your case, the likelihood of success, and the process involved. Costs may also be an issue in any appeal.

2. Check the time limit: You will need to check the time limit for making an appeal, which is usually 21 days from the date of the decision. In some cases, you may be able to apply for permission to appeal out of time, but this can be difficult to obtain.

3. File a notice of appeal: You will need to file a notice of appeal with the court that made the decision. This sets out the grounds of your appeal and the orders you are seeking. The notice of appeal should be served on all parties involved in the case.

4. Obtain the court records: You will need to obtain a copy of the court records, including the transcript of the hearing and the judgment.

5. Attend the appeal hearing: The appeal hearing will be heard by a higher court, such as the High Court or the Court of Appeal. You will need to attend the hearing in person or through your legal representative.

6. Present your case: At the appeal hearing, you will have the opportunity to present your case to the court. The court will then make a decision based on the evidence presented.

If you are successful in your appeal, the higher court may overturn the decision of the lower court or order a new hearing. If you are unsuccessful, you may have the option to seek permission to appeal to a higher court.

Book a Conference with me as soon as possible to discuss.

What is the difference between solicitors and barristers?

In the UK legal system, barristers and solicitors are two distinct types of legal professionals who play different roles in the provision of legal services. While both barristers and solicitors have legal qualifications, they have different responsibilities and areas of expertise.

Solicitors are legal professionals who work directly with clients to provide legal advice and manage their legal affairs. They are often the first point of contact for clients who require legal services. Solicitors can provide advice on a range of legal issues, including conveyancing, family law, criminal law, and employment law. They may also represent clients in court, although this is typically in lower courts such as magistrates' courts.

Barristers, on the other hand, are specialist advocates who provide representation in court. They are typically instructed by solicitors to represent clients in more complex legal matters, such as those that require specialist knowledge or expertise. Barristers may also provide legal advice to clients, but this is usually in relation to specific legal issues rather than general legal matters.

One key difference between solicitors and barristers is the way in which they are trained. Solicitors must complete a degree in law or a non-law subject followed by a postgraduate diploma in law, known as the Legal Practice Course (LPC). They must also complete a period of training known as a training contract. This typically involves working for a law firm for two years, during which time they gain practical experience in various areas of law.

Barristers, on the other hand, must complete a degree in law or a non-law subject followed by a one-year postgraduate course known as the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). They must then complete a period of pupillage, which involves working for a senior barrister for a period of up to one year. During this time, they gain practical experience and develop their advocacy skills.

Another key difference between solicitors and barristers is the way in which they are regulated. Solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), while barristers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

In summary, solicitors and barristers are both legal professionals who play important roles in the provision of legal services in the UK. Solicitors provide legal advice and manage legal affairs, while barristers are specialist advocates who provide representation in court. While there are some similarities between the two professions, there are also important differences in terms of training, regulation, and areas of expertise.

What does a barrister do?

Barristers are legal professionals in the UK who specialise in representing clients in court and providing legal advice. They are also known as counsel, and their role is distinct from that of solicitors, who provide legal advice and manage the day-to-day aspects of a client's case.

In the UK, barristers must be called to the Bar and complete a period of training known as pupillage. They are then admitted to one of the four Inns of Court, which are responsible for regulating the profession.

Once qualified, barristers may work in a variety of areas of law, including criminal, family, commercial, and civil law. They may also specialise in specific areas of law, such as employment or immigration law.

The main role of a barrister is to provide legal representation in court. This may involve preparing legal arguments, cross-examining witnesses, and presenting evidence on behalf of their client. Barristers are skilled advocates who are trained to present complex legal arguments in a clear and persuasive manner.

In addition to representing clients in court, barristers also provide legal advice. They may be asked to advise on a range of legal issues, including contracts, property disputes, and family law. Barristers are skilled at interpreting complex legal documents and providing clear and concise advice to their clients.

Barristers may also be asked to provide opinions on legal issues. This involves reviewing legal documents and providing a written opinion on the merits of a case. Opinions may be provided to other legal professionals, such as solicitors or other barristers, or directly to clients.

In some cases, barristers may act as arbitrators or mediators. This involves helping parties to resolve disputes outside of court by facilitating negotiations and reaching a settlement.

Overall, barristers play an important role in the UK legal system. They are skilled advocates and legal professionals who provide legal representation and advice to clients. If you are facing a legal issue and require representation in court, or if you need legal advice, a barrister may be able to help.

Instructing a barrister on direct access

In the UK, it is possible to instruct a barrister directly without the need for a solicitor, through a process known as Direct Access. This allows individuals or organisations to have direct communication with a barrister and to receive legal advice and representation in court without having to go through a solicitor first.

Direct Access is a convenient and cost-effective way to access legal advice and representation. It can be particularly useful in situations where legal issues are straightforward or where a client only requires advice or representation on a specific matter.

When instructing a barrister through Direct Access, it's important to ensure that the barrister is authorised to accept Direct Access instructions. Not all barristers are permitted to accept Direct Access instructions, so it's important to check their credentials first. Barristers who are authorised to accept Direct Access instructions will have completed additional training and must adhere to strict rules and regulations.

Once you have identified a barrister who is authorised to accept Direct Access instructions, you can contact them directly to discuss your case. You will need to provide them with information about your case, including any relevant documents or evidence.

The barrister will then assess your case and advise you on the best course of action. This may include providing legal advice, drafting legal documents, or representing you in court. They will also provide you with a fee estimate for their services.

It's important to note that while Direct Access allows you to communicate with a barrister directly, the barrister may still require you to engage the services of a solicitor or other legal professional in certain circumstances. For example, if your case involves complex legal issues or requires extensive research, the barrister may require the assistance of a solicitor to ensure that your case is properly prepared.

Instructing a barrister, such as Jason Hadden MBE through Direct Access can be a cost-effective and efficient way to access legal advice and representation. However, it's important to ensure that the barrister is authorised to accept Direct Access instructions and to carefully consider the nature of your case before instructing a barrister directly.

Grandparents and contact in children disputes

Grandparents play an important role in the lives of their grandchildren, and in the UK, there are laws that recognise the value of this relationship. If a grandparent is being denied access to their grandchild, they may be able to apply for a court order to gain contact with the child.

Grandparents do not have an automatic legal right to see their grandchildren, but they can apply for a court order for contact under the Children Act 1989. The court will consider a number of factors when deciding whether or not to grant contact, including the child's best interests and any harm that may be caused to the child if contact is granted or denied.

When considering a grandparent's application for contact, the court will also take into account the nature of the relationship between the grandparent and the child, as well as any other relevant factors such as the wishes and feelings of the child and the grandparent's ability to meet the child's needs.

If the court decides to grant a contact order, it will set out the arrangements for the grandparent's contact with the child. This may include the frequency and duration of the contact, as well as any other conditions that the court deems necessary to ensure the child's welfare.

It's important to note that grandparents must first try to resolve any disputes about contact with the child through mediation before they can apply to the court for a contact order. This is a process where a mediator helps the parties involved to reach an agreement about contact.

If mediation is unsuccessful, the grandparent can apply for a court order. However, it's important to seek legal advice before making an application, as the court will only grant an order if it is in the best interests of the child.

In some cases, grandparents may be granted a live with or residence order, which means that the child lives with them. This can happen if the grandparent is providing a stable and secure home for the child, and if it is in the child's best interests to live with them.

Overall, while grandparents do not have an automatic legal right to see their grandchildren, they can apply for a court order for contact. The court will consider a range of factors when making a decision, with the child's best interests being the primary consideration. It's important for grandparents to seek legal advice before making an application, as the court will only grant an order if it is in the best interests of the child.

What is Parental Responsibility

Parental responsibility is a legal term that refers to the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that parents have in relation to their child. It is an important concept in family law in the UK, and it is a fundamental aspect of a parent's relationship with their child.

In the UK, parental responsibility is defined in the Children Act 1989. This act sets out who has parental responsibility and what it entails. According to the act, a person who has parental responsibility has the right to make decisions about their child's upbringing, including where they live, their education, their medical treatment, and any other important decisions affecting their welfare.

The following people automatically have parental responsibility for a child:

• The mother of the child, regardless of whether she is married to the child's father or not

• The father of the child, if he is married to the child's mother at the time of the child's birth

• The father of the child, if he is named on the child's birth certificate (from 1 December 2003 onwards)

• An unmarried father who has obtained parental responsibility through a parental responsibility agreement with the mother or through a court order

• A step-parent who has obtained parental responsibility through a court order

• A person who has been appointed as a guardian for the child

Parents who do not have parental responsibility can still be involved in their child's life, but they may not have the legal authority to make decisions about their child's upbringing.

It's important to note that parental responsibility is not the same as custody or access. Custody refers to where the child lives, and access refers to the time the child spends with each parent. These issues are dealt with separately by the court.

Parental responsibility is a fundamental aspect of a parent's relationship with their child, and it is important for parents to understand their rights and responsibilities in this regard. By having parental responsibility, parents are able to make important decisions about their child's upbringing and ensure that their best interests are protected. If there is a dispute between parents about parental responsibility, it is possible to apply to the court for a decision.

What is a specific issue order?

A specific issue order is a legal order made by a court that determines a particular issue in relation to a child's upbringing. This order is usually made when there is a disagreement between parents about a specific issue and they are unable to reach an agreement on their own.

The specific issue order can cover a wide range of issues, including where the child should go to school, what medical treatment they should receive, what religion they should practice, or whether they should undergo a particular medical procedure.

When considering whether to grant a specific issue order, the court will take into account the child's welfare and best interests. They will also consider the views and wishes of both parents, as well as any other relevant parties, such as the child's school or medical professionals.

In order to apply for a specific issue order, one parent must make an application to the court. The court will then consider the application and may hold a hearing to hear evidence and arguments from both parties before making a decision.

Once a specific issue order has been granted, it is legally binding on both parents, and failure to comply with the order can result in serious consequences. It is also possible to apply to the court to vary or discharge a specific issue order if circumstances change or if there is a need for a new order to be made.

Overall, a specific issue order is an important legal tool that can help to resolve disputes between parents and provide a framework for cooperation and collaboration in the upbringing of the child. By determining a specific issue in relation to the child's upbringing, it can provide clarity and certainty for both parents and help to ensure that the child's best interests are protected.

What is a prohibited steps order

A prohibited steps order is a legal order made by a court that prevents one or both parents from taking certain actions in relation to their child without the permission of the court or the other parent. This order is usually made in cases where there is a dispute between the parents regarding a decision about their child's upbringing.

A prohibited steps order can be made on a wide range of issues, including preventing a parent from taking the child out of the country, changing their name, or changing their school or place of residence. The purpose of the order is to protect the best interests of the child and prevent any harm that could result from a parent taking unilateral action without the agreement of the other parent.

Prohibited steps orders are often made in conjunction with other court orders, such as child arrangement orders or specific issue orders. For example, if there is a dispute about which school the child should attend, the court may make a specific issue order to determine this issue, and a prohibited steps order to prevent either parent from unilaterally changing the child's school without the other parent's consent.

When making a prohibited steps order, the court will take into account a number of factors, including the child's welfare and the relationship between the child and each parent. The court will also consider any evidence of harm or potential harm that could result from a particular action, such as a risk of abduction or emotional harm.

It's important to note that a prohibited steps order is a legally binding order, and failure to comply with it can result in serious consequences, including fines or imprisonment. It is also possible to apply to the court to vary or discharge a prohibited steps order if circumstances change or if there is a need for a new order to be made.

Overall, a prohibited steps order is an important legal tool that can help to protect the best interests of a child and prevent unilateral actions that could cause harm. By preventing one or both parents from taking certain actions without the agreement of the other parent or the court, it can provide a framework for cooperation and collaboration in the upbringing of the child. If you have questions about this type of order, then please contact me

What is a child arrangement order?

A child arrangement order is a legal document that outlines where a child will live and how much time they will spend with each parent after a divorce or separation. This order can be granted by a court, and it is legally binding for both parents.

The purpose of a child arrangement order is to ensure that the best interests of the child are met, and that they have a stable and consistent living arrangement. The order can cover a wide range of issues, including where the child will live, when they will spend time with each parent, and how decisions about their upbringing will be made.

There are two types of child arrangement orders: live with order (previously called a residence order) and spend time with order (previously and often still called contact orders). A live with order determines where the child will live, and to a certain extent who will have parental responsibility for them. A spend time or contact order outlines when the child will spend time with the non-resident parent, and the nature of that contact.

When considering a child arrangement order, the court will take a number of factors into account, including the child's age, their relationship with each parent, and their wishes and feelings (depending on their age and understanding). The court will also consider any harm that the child may be at risk of experiencing, and whether one parent is better equipped than the other to meet their needs. This is called the welfare checklist.

It's important to note that child arrangement orders can be changed if circumstances change. For example, if one parent moves away or if the child's needs change, it may be necessary to revisit the order and make adjustments.

Overall, a child arrangement order is an important legal document that can help to ensure that a child's needs are met after a divorce or separation. By setting out clear guidelines for where the child will live and how much time they will spend with each parent, it can provide stability and consistency during what can be a difficult time for everyone involved. To apply for one you need to complete a C100 form from the court. I can talk you through the process and explain what you need to do for the court proceedings.

What is direct access?

Before 2004 it was not possible for members of the public to engage a barrister without first instructing a solicitor. That changed when the Public Access Rules for barristers were introduced in 2004. You may now instruct a barrister directly.

In certain cases, barristers can accept work directly from the public, other professionals, foreign lawyers, organisations and commercial companies without incurring the additional expense of a solicitor, potentially saving you a significant amount of money overall.

Communication with a specialist direct access barrister is faster because you are dealing with the barrister directly. Direct Access to barristers, however, may not be appropriate in the some cases – which are better suited to the traditional model of instructing a barrister through a solicitor.

Full details of the Bar Council’s public access scheme, including relevant guidance, can be found on their website at:www.barcouncil.org.uk. Not all cases will be suitable, but the Bar Council sets out the details of the sort of direct access work a barrister is permitted to conduct without a solicitor being involved.

In brief, a barrister working on direct public access cases can represent a client in courts and tribunals, and provide specialist legal advice including giving a second opinion. He or she can also assist in drafting correspondence, statements and documents required by the court, and he or she can advise on the use and instruction of experts in certain cases.

However, a direct access barrister cannot correspond directly with other parties in the case, or collect evidence or interview witnesses. They cannot issue court documents, instruct experts directly on your behalf, or handle clients’ money or hold money on account.

DOES THE BARRISTER HAVE TO ACCEPT THE PUBLIC ACCESS WORK?

Jason reserves the right whether or not to accept a case that is suitable for public access. 

If he decide to accept your instructions, you will be sent a client care letter that clearly sets out the work to be undertaken, the terms and conditions, states how much the work will cost and the deadline for making those payments. 

As a direct public access chambers, Jason is under a duty to consider whether a case remains suitable for public access and there is a continual review carried out by him, as a barrister. 

In rare cases where the circumstances of your case change and that change is deemed no longer suitable for public access e.g. you require the assistance of a solicitor, then he is under a duty to refuse to continue to act under direct public access. Jason will provide you with detailed reasons should this be the case.

What is coercive controlling behaviour?

A couple of weeks ago I posted a definition of controlling behaviour. Sadly this level of abuse often goes hand in hand with coercive behaviour. Again, this is only a general, but hopefully helpful definition of coercive control.
Coercive control is a form of emotional and psychological abuse that involves the use of manipulative tactics to control and dominate a victim.
It often involves a pattern of behavior that systematically undermines the victim's sense of self-worth, independence, and autonomy.
Coercive control can take many forms, including isolating the victim from friends and family, monitoring their movements and communications, dictating what they wear or how they look, controlling their finances, and using threats, intimidation, or physical violence to maintain control.
It can start small and grow day by day, week by week.
Victims of coercive control may often feel trapped and unable to leave the relationship, as the abuser may have systematically undermined their sense of self-worth and independence over time. They may also fear for their safety if they try to leave or resist the abuser's control.
It is important for victims of coercive control to seek help and support, whether from friends and family, a therapist, or one of the very many helpful domestic abuse hotlines. The police can and should also help.
Specialist solicitors can help and apply for non-molestation orders. It is also, within PD12J relevant in the family courts.
It is important for victims to understand that they are not alone, and that help and resources are available to support them in breaking free from the cycle of abuse

What is controlling behaviour?

Just a reminder, as I get asked a lot from clients about controlling behaviour. This is only a very general explanation, but hopefully still helpful.
Controlling behavior refers to actions or patterns of behaviour that are intended to limit or control another person's actions, thoughts, or feelings. It can occur in various types of relationships, including romantic relationships, family relationships, or friendships.
Some examples of controlling behavior may include:
- Dictating how the other person should dress or act
- Isolating the other person from friends and family
- Monitoring the other person's activities, including phone and internet use
- Limiting the other person's access to financial resources
- Making decisions for the other person without their input or agreement
- Using threats or intimidation to control the other person's behavior
Controlling behavior can be a form of emotional abuse and can have significant negative effects on the other person's mental health and wellbeing. It is important to recognise the signs of controlling behaviour and seek help if you or someone you know is experiencing it. It is not acceptable.
There is help out. If you are experiencing such behaviour, speaks to friends, the police, lawyers or charities. You are not alone.

The Top Ten legal dramas as published in Counsel Magazine

I have never been quite sure as to why television production companies have such a fascination with the law and TV legal dramas. For many of us involved in the legal profession the ‘job’ involves hours of reading, waiting (there is a lot of waiting) and the tedious nitty gritty of drafting. The ‘drama’ is mostly juggling that work-life balance, finding a parking space near the court (in the days pre-Covid) and whether or not you’ll get paid.

But, that said, I have spent many hours (and more so over Covid) inhaling almost every legal fix that Amazon, Netflix and numerous digital channels could offer to me.

So, with that in mind I offer you my reader, the ultimate top ten of TV legal dramas. No films. No books and sadly no plays.

So, what are the parameters? I don’t want to fall into the Die Hard Christmas trap (although, let’s be honest, it is Christmas film).

I have decided to select the programme on its best episodes (some dramas, like submissions, go on far too long). I have split my choices between the UK and US. I have also factored into the mix, its significance, to me, to culture and dare I say, the profession. I have in preparing a top ten, been forced to leave out so many wonderful TV legal dramas. There is no place for The Split, for Better Call Saul, for Crown Court,  or for Murder One. It is also incredible when looking back over many of these programmes for this article to see the number of now household actors who have cut their teeth in this genre. There was an episode of my ninth choice in 1974 which included both Harrison Ford and William Shatner.

So as any good DJ would (that’s disc jockey, not district judge), I shall start at number 10.

Number 10 – Defending the Guilty. British, realistic and with a dark a sense of humour. We see how young barristers approach pupillage and imposter syndrome. How idealism falls to realism in a matter of weeks. That all criminals know more about the law than their lawyers. We have all been there. Haven’t we? A real find. A second season has been commissioned.

Number 9 – Petocelli – Barry Newman in the early 1970s played Tony Petrocelli, a Harvard educated attorney who gives up the glitz of the city ,relocating to a sleepy town in Arizona.  Over two seasons he defends those accused of murder, whilst casually building a house in the desert.   Even in the 1970s here was a lawyer with an eye for detail, that go-to liberal passion and a brilliant trial lawyer. There is that wonderful moment near the end of every episode where our hero (the lawyer is always the hero. Right?) would recap through cross examination what really happened. Pure theatre, but then again the ambition of every trial counsel.

Number 8 – Ally McBeal. Was how we all wanted a law firm to be like. Sadly, it never was quite like this. From Barry White to dancing babies; it was hot, vibrant, funny, zany, stupid and delightful. You either fell in love with one of the characters (often Ally herself) or just wanted to be them. It was everything we wanted from the profession. Wasn’t it? It was  always amusing to watch John Cage’s collections of sneezes and creaky shoes to put off opponents in court. Highly inappropriate, mind you! Would never happen in the UK now, would it.

Number 7 – LA LAW. What a great programme. Now somewhat dated, but for a time it was must-watch TV. California. A bunch of lawyers who cared basically for one thing and one thing only. Money, money, money. Whilst the programme may not have given lawyers a great name, it had it all. Romance, in-fighting and the legendary Arnie Becker. Absolutely great fun!

Number 6 – Judge John Deed. Martin Shaw plays the romanticised, liberal judge who basically breaks just about every rule going. He dates the barristers who appear before him. Is at war with his fellow judges and interferes with just about everything else whilst sitting in the High Court. So unrealistic, but it’s a good watch. Yet it is one of those programmes where you just shout at the telly, “You can’t do that!” “No. That’s not allowed.” But it is fun.

Number 5 – Kavanagh QC. John Thaw is simply superb. What makes this programme work so well is that the writing is so good. Each episode is based around a significant chunk of time in court. You see Kavanagh in action, plying his trade as a skilled advocate. What is so refreshing is that he doesn’t always win. There are also times when he does win and yet this, is the miscarriage of justice. The interactions with chambers are both, dare I say, realistic and silly.  My favourite moment is when the criminal hack having undertaken an early parental alienation private law case comes back into chambers after the hearing and begs to his clerk, “Tom, get me a burglary, get a me a good assault, get me a GBH, even a murder get me anything criminal, even if it’s drunk in charge of a bicycle but don’t get me a flaming family, aright.” Welcome to my world!

Number 4 – Silk. Silk made dare I say, barristers sexy. In Peter Moffat’s drama we had sex, politics and court room shenanigans. Maxine Peake was terrifying as a barrister on the make focused on becoming a silk. It was theatre, but life like. The image of the wig being stolen by the pupil from the London tailors must have made the BSB shudder. In the character of Billy (played beautifully by Neil Stuke) we had the closest you will find to a proper old school London clerk. Magical.

Number 3 – The Good Fight. They say that sequels are never quite as good as the original. Yet this raises the bar with its legal political drama (the original being the Good Wife) played out in real time in the US during the Presidency of Donald J Trump. Many of the episodes challenge this Presidency and question the rule of law. The acting is first rate and allows you the viewer a real glimpse into the interaction between politics and the law. Something perhaps until recently, something we have been less familiar with in the UK.

Number 2 – Suits. The TV show where we first met Meghan Markle. I shall make no further comment. We also however met Harvey Specter. Harvey Specter is the epitome of cool. He made all lawyers cool. Suave suits, good teeth and damn good looking. The bromance between him and law drop out Mike Ross worked. It had less actual legal drama than many programmes, concentrating more on the ownership of the firm and keeping Mike’s secret secret; but it worked. I wonder where the cast are now.

Number 1 – Rumpole. This may be considered a contentious choice, but then again, it is mine. There is no place for that cantankerous, yet brilliant barrister has been an absolute inspiration. I was a child when I first saw him on television challenging authority and following his path; rather than that dictated to him. An approach which did not go down quite so well with me at school, but we live and learn. Rumpole had it all. Great trials; causes to fight for; an understanding (perhaps now dated) of society, ambition and life at the Bar (again, perhaps dated). It is still wonderful now for the Temple, its bars and indeed for jobbing barrister, known affectionately by his surname: Rumpole.

Well, do you agree?

Jason M Hadden is a barrister at St Ives Chambers

The Top Ten legal movies as published in Counsel Magazine

There is something magical about going to the cinema.  Perhaps it’s the popcorn, the tasteless hot dog bereft of meat, or the gigantic litre of cola filled too high with ice.

 I remember as a child being dragged through Leicester Square to go to a “proper cinema” to see the Empire battling the Resistance for the domination of the stars. I was hooked, and in truth have been ever since.

But there is and has to my mind, always been something special about movies relating to this business of ours, the law. For many, the reason that they entered the profession was because of Erin Brockovich, or Darby Shaw, or “because we couldn’t handle the truth”. Wouldn’t we all like to find the killers of two Supreme Court Judges; uncover the truth about some toxin, to save the lives of thousands; or be able to use our knowledge of the consequences of showering too soon after a perm to find a murderer. I accept that some readers of this piece, will puff out their chests and exhale “well, that’s the day job”.

But for others (well basically me) we ‘sometimes;’ have those moments, those brief encounters when our questions hit home in cross examination; just like in the movies. But there is no fee-paying audience, no fanfare; merely the Judge who has seen it all before. We come to court the next day for the sequel hoping for resolute success but resigning ourselves to the fact that it will never be as good as first time (the problems with sequels). The reality is that for many of us, we can’t offer a Hollywood blockbuster, but we try our darndest to avoid Hammer House of Horrors.

Film makers clearly have a special attraction with the law. Who knew it was so exciting?

Be it placed within that realm of a thriller, a comedy or indeed the supernatural, they have attached a legal angle to it.

So, yet again, I have been asked to compile a top ten. This time, the top ten legal movies.

As ever, some parameters.

I have only included those films with a trial scene.

I appreciate that not every lawyer is a trial lawyer. Nor that every legal film has a trial scene. But I think in movies, and I have been liberal in my description of a trial, there is often something special to that courtroom interaction. The dalliance with the Judge, or one’s opponent.

I have not criticised films for their liberal interpretation of the facts (How can I? I’m a barrister. I have heard the liberal interpretation of the facts in court on many occasions).

So let us begin.

Great films which failed to make cut included The Firm, the Pelican Brief, Dark Waters and the wonderful Green Man. I have and this has surprised me, included a fair number of black and white films. With age comes quality (well that’s what I tell my clients).

So where to begin? Let’s go old school with number 10.

12 Angry Men is an absolute classic. The ultimate legal drama where we never see the inside of the court room; but instead the jury deliberations. That see-sawing over whether the young man is guilty or innocent of murdering his father.  The jury dealing with the advocates deficiencies. The film is extremely good, not merely as a detective piece but at also looking into the minds of the twelve “good men and true”. Their passions, bias and prejudices.

At 9, we have Legally Blonde. One of Hollywood’s tricks is it attempt to put someone who you would not traditionally expect to see as a lawyer (we see the same at Number 7) who as it happens (the moral of the story) turns out an extremely good lawyer. That is ultimately because there should be no ‘type’ for this ‘role’ of lawyer. We all face imposter syndrome (without the assistance of Hollywood). Reece Witherspoon plays the role superbly with confidence, authenticity, preparation, and determination (as any good lawyer would). A great watch on a Sunday afternoon.

To Kill a Mockingbird at number 8, is another fine classic. Atticus Finch defending Tom Robinson, a black man ‘wrongly accused’ of raping a white woman in 1930s Alabama. Race, prejudice and fellowship follow. A wonderful book and a great film, particularly for the performance of Gregory Peck. Growing up everybody I knew wanted Atticus Finch as their father. The film is now sadly somewhat dated, but the message is as clear as ever; that equality, honesty, liberalism and that passion to defend the rights of others shall prevail.

At 7 we have a comedy with Joe Pesci playing the out of town and dare I say, out of touch lawyer in My Cousin Vinny. A family member accused of murder and Uncle Vinny, our reluctant hero with more expertise in “gritz” (a southern breakfast delicacy for the uncultured) than the law; saves the day (spoilers).

At 6, On the Basis of Sex is the story of the life of the phenomenal, awe inspiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her journey to the US Supreme Court. Again, that liberal fight for gender equality and indeed justice. Felicity Jones is great as RBG and the trial scene is particularly good where to a judge's objection that the Constitution does not contain the word "woman", she responds passionately that neither does it contain the word "freedom". Boom.

At 5, A Matter of Life and Death we have the archetypical Englishman, David Niven play a pilot during WWII crashing to his death in this fantasy-romantic comedy. During his descent to Earth he speaks with June, radio operator at Air Command. Within a moment they fall in love (look I said it was part-fantasy). He cheats death. The bond with June grows before Heaven recognises the technical error that they missed him. A trial in Heaven ensues as to whether he should live or die. Roger Livesey battles Raymond Massey over the thorny issue of ‘love’, freedom and life. Well worth a watch.

At 4, we have The Children Act. As a family barrister I was always going to go for this film, which at its heart is the question over whether a 17-year old boy, a Jehovah Witness, should be forced by court order to have a blood transfusion. Emma Thompson plays the High Court Judge with this incredibly difficult decision. Stanley Tucci is excellent (when isn’t he?) as the Judge’s husband. What makes the film for me, is that we get to see a realistic portrayal of the family life of the Judge and of the problems of balancing life, the law and relationships at the modern Bar.  It is also to see how creative the film makers are in showing our Judge as grumpy, cantankerous and difficult in court (they can just go too far with fiction). An excellent film.

At 3, we have The Trial of the Chicago Seven. This film took me completely by surprise. Its brilliant. A fabulous cast including Mark Rylance, Eddie Redmayne and Sacha Baron Cohen star in this quite frankly absurd, brutal, brilliant, political trial thriller. Based on a true trial, we see a corrupt legal process in Chicago in the 1970s. The film follows (and it is mostly based during the trial) the Chicago Seven, a group of anti-Vietnam war protesters charged with conspiracy and inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Written and directed by Aaron Sorkin (he of the West Wing) we have a film which attacks at our emotions, our sensibilities and our belief in justice. Wow. Just wow.

At 2, Inherit the Wind is another film based on a real trial. This time we are in 1925 and Dayton Tennessee where a schoolteacher is prosecuted in the “Scopes Trial” for teaching this radical new ‘idea’ called human evolution, in school. The film has yet again, a wonderful cast. Spencer Tracey, Gene Kelly and Dick York. The issues in the film (and the advocates arguments) are as pertinent today as they were in 1925. Themes such as a person’s right to have a cause; to think; to hold an opinion, that is unpopular to others. This is an extraordinary film with great acting.

Which brings us (thankfully) to our last and indeed top film. That prize goes to A Few Good Men. A modern classic, with Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson in that trial scene.  The reluctant lawyer who for want of a better phrase, shows up and kicks butt. The film revolves around the court martial of two US Marines charged with murdering a fellow Marine; and a Code Red. Wonderful iconic performances.

Now, where did I leave that Oscar?

Jason M Hadden MBE

Barrister at St Ives Chambers.

A review of Witness for the Prosecution published in Counsel Magazine

Coming out of Covid (well, living with Covid) I have been extremely nervous about venturing back out into the world, this new world; and to congested, busy events. Gone are those heady days of theatre on a Thursday, drinks on a Friday and a concert on a Saturday before returning to court preparation on a Sunday. Please note that I do on occasions write with some irony. But when the editor of this venerable publication told me to get back to the theatre, I thought I had little choice. An edict from up high. So: a musical perhaps, Shakespeare, Ibsen, a comedy? No. I thought I would keep to safe turf and selected a legal drama. A murder.

Who says I have no ambition?

Witness for the Prosecution is playing for your enjoyment at the County Hall in London.  A spectacular theatre. It was the old council debating chamber. The theatre very much becomes part of the performance and this is very much to its credit. It adds to the intensity and to the emotion. Nowhere in the theatre to you sit further than two or three metres away from the action.  As such you feel very much as if you are part of the trial (in a way in which we can sit back and relax; rather than the day job of being part of the trial).

The play written by Agatha Christie is very much a legal drama, with murder, suspense and a little humour.

Leonard Vole is accusing of murdering a widow to inherit her considerable wealth. If he is found guilty then the death penalty awaits. But he protests his innocence. Is he the killer?

He relies on his loving wife to provide his alibi. But can she be trusted? She is to be called as a witness for the Prosecution. The delightful interplay between the barristers and the Judge is almost balletic.

Personally, I preferred the 1957 film version of this story for the wonderful performance as Vole’s barrister Sir Wilfrid Roberts, by the late, great Charles Laughton.   That said, this is great fun and a very good way to wile away an evening at the theatre. The story is engaging, the theatre captivating and the ending (no spoilers) is extremely well executed. A great way to step back into this world. The future is bright. The future, like the past is Christie.

Jason M Hadden MBE

A barrister at St Ives Chambers

A Review of Prime Facie published in Counsel Magazine

I am always nervous about going to see a play that is related to the law. Invariably, I would find it unwatchable, with this or that aspect usually being wrong. Basically, like when I used to watch the Bill on TV whilst studying at Law School. Had they even read PACE?

So the prospect of spending ninety minutes watching Jodie Comer (of in particular, Killing Eve fame) portraying, an actual barrister, filled me with trepidation. I was wrong. Wow. Was I wrong?

Jodie Comer plays Tessa, a successful criminal defence barrister. A girl made good from the working-class suburbs of Liverpool. She spends her days in court, defending the indefensible and largely those accused of sexual abuse, (a point which she grapples with early on in her performance). Those she represents are the worst of the worst. She, plays the game and wins. She does it with charisma, pathos and vigour.

Comer draws on the working tools and fundamentals of this profession consistently and thoroughly, never causing those who know the role well to lose interest. Everyone is entitled to representation; and as a barrister you are obliged to do your best for them. But, what happens, if or when, you are yourself a victim of sexual abuse. One in three women are subjected to physical or sexual violence once in their lifetime.  So, what happens when it is the barrister,  who is the victim of a sexual assault. An assault from another barrister. A barrister in your chambers? A barrister who is also an expert in criminal law? This is the situation which befalls Tessa. Raped, by her ‘boyfriend’ when she said no. Raped, by another barrister.

Who does the court, your workplace, believe? Jodie Comer is fantastic in this one-woman show. She is wholly believably as an ambitious lawyer and sadly, too as a rape victim.

Comer executes the fine line between being a barrister and being human brilliantly, the two often mistaken for the same thing.  She reminds us that sadly, we may also as legal professionals find ourselves at the mercy of the court in one way or another. She grapples, with the difficulties that we face as humans in the profession, and also how clients may feel when entrusting us as their advocates and our justice system with their lives with beautiful balance.

It is wonderfully written by Suzie Miller, who takes us on a journey of beguile and ultimately destruction. We sit mesmerized as an audience by the set, the performance and the oratory. Comer’s costume and set changes are seamless.

Jodie Cromer holds the audience in absolute captivation by way of her performance. One actor: 90 minutes. She is charming, vulnerable and ultimately us. By that I mean anyone who has faced bullying, abuse and or despair. She holds us in her hands, and dictates our emotions, our anger and for many in the audience, our tears.

The criminal justice system is itself held to trial; and as perhaps is unsurprising to any of us with even a mere understanding, found to be failing. One in three. The system is failing; but this production, is not. Absolutely five stars!

Primae Facie is playing at the Harold Pinter Theatre in London

Jason M Hadden MBE is a barrister

Public Access and Child disputes

In the past few months I have seen a significant increase in public access (sometimes called ‘direct access’) approaches from potential clients in private law children disputes. This is perhaps unsurprising when the latest figures from Cafcass (in May 2018) show that they received a total of 3,704 new private law cases in that month. This is the third highest total for the month of May since records began. To put these figures into context between April 2017 and March 2018 Cafcass received a total of 42,058new private law cases.This figure shows an 3.8% increasecompared with the previous financial year.

Having recently written a book on the topic (shameless plug: How to Represent Yourself in the Family Court: A Guide for Litigants in Person), perhaps I should take some responsibility for the increase in court applications. Figures from the Ministry of Justice last year stated that neither the applicant nor respondent were represented in 36% of disposals, compared with 34% in the previous quarter. That means parents (sometimes family members) are going to court to negotiate the arrangements for their children without the benefit of any legal representation.

In many ways, I think this is madness. Our children are the most important people in our lives. They mean the world to us. The rules in the family court are complicated. I am absolutely convinced that parents get better outcomes in court where they have the benefit of proper legal representation. It also in my view helps reduce conflict, stress and relationships. This is one of the reasons that I was so frustrated by the government when they significantly reduced legal aid in private law children cases. They obsessed about the short term financial savings and ignored the short, medium and long term health, social and indeed financial savings of providing representation and advice in cases involving children. The real losers are indeed the children.

I suspect it is also the case that if legal aid was there to support parents in disputes concerning children there would be less rather than more cases going to court, as lawyers would negotiate a sensible child focused approach to any such disputes.

I appreciate that lawyers can be expensive. But you receive tremendous support, expertise and indeed value.

So what is public access? Parents and family members (often grandparents from my experience) seeking to make a court application concerning children go directly to a barrister, rather than instruct a solicitor who then instructs the barrister. There obviously can then be significant savings for the client.  Although the barrister’s role remains essentially the same, the client would be acting in person and having to do a lot more of the work which the solicitor would have undertaken.

Many clients find this much easier, costs effective and more satisfying. Which comes back to why I have had so many enquiries recently. If the case is too complex for the client to manage themselves, then I will also recommend that they instruct a solicitor. I think (having been one myself) that most solicitors undertake a fantastic job for their clients and are real assets. But I accept that we need to be more creative to ensure that parents (and family members) in cases concerning children are properly advised and represented. I am not convinced that the answer is always for more litigants representing themselves. As without proper legal representation they are not getting the best outcomes for their children.

I will re-enforce this view with my final statistics. Research published by Cafcass in November last year, found that 30 per cent of the 40,599 private law applications involving Cafcass in 2016-17 had been to court before. The majority returned within two years, and almost a third had been to court at least twice before. One child had been the subject of eleven cases between 2005 and 2017. Makes you think doesn’t it?

Jason M Hadden MBE is a barrister at St Ives Chambers

Grandparents, the law and spending time with their grandchildren

For many children their grandparents are the most important people in their lives. Their confidant, their babysitter, guardian, best friend and the producer of the best cakes anyone can ever make. Not to mention or their stories. Did I mention their stories? Ok, sometimes repetitive, but damn good stories. So it is something of anomaly that they do not have an automatic right to see their grandchildren should their children (the parents) separate or some family feud develop. It always saddens and frustrates me when grandparents come to see me (which they too often do) to say that there has been a falling out, or a new partner or some issue which they can barely remember and as a consequence they are no longer allowed to see their grandchildren.

On any level this cannot be in the best interests of the children or indeed of society. I appreciate that there are times when bad things (and sometime really bad things) may have happened, which means that it is absolutely prudent and necessary for such relationships to be severed, but this is often the extreme. Children deserve to have (where safe) relationships with grandparents. It informs their identity, their heritage and indeed their ethnicity.

I pause, to state a vestige interest: I had grandparents. Ok. Its out there.

The statistics from the MOJ on this issue are galling. Grandparents have made over 2,000 applications for child arrangements orders. These figures are on the rise. They also do not reflect the complete picture, as many grandparents are making applications in the nominal name of their own children (the “father” or “mother”) to see the grandchildren.

But grandparents face an additional hurdle though the Court when seeking to spend time with the grandchildren. They require the permission of the Court, to actually be allowed, to apply to the Court, for an order (a s8 order) to spend time with the child. So for grandparents it is a two step process.

Firstly seek permission to make an application to spend time with the child; then if they are successful and only then, can they make an application to actually spend time with the child.

The Court will consider each application individually, and will look at a number of issues when deciding whether to grant permission for an application to be made by the grandparent.

There can be exceptions under s.10(5)(c)) but otherwise they have to meet the criteria as set out in s.10(9). This is the actual law bit (stick with it). The Court will firstly consider the welfare needs of any children, and whether if by allowing an application to go ahead, it would cause risk or harm to a child. The Court will look at the nature of the application, and the applicant’s connection to the child or children. The Court will also have to consider the views of the parents. 

I know. Its complicated. Unnecessarily so. Too many grandparents bulk at a system which put such hurdles up against them; causing them to give up on such significant relationships.

It is only when (and if) that permission is granted can they apply to the Court to see the grandchildren. The key however is that there is no authority creating a presumption of leave in favour of a grandparent. Each case is to be looked at on its merits. Which often creates delay, undue stress and of course costs. In most cases I venture it makes a fractured family relationship even worse.

It is claimed that this additional step is in place “to act as a filter to sift out those applications that are clearly not in the child’s best interests”.

In 2010 the then Labour Government produced a Green Paper setting out an intention to remove the requirement to seek permission of the court. The Family Justice Review was then set up in March 2010 and supported by the Coalition Government when it came into government. The Review reported in November 2011 that “the need for grandparents to apply for leave of the court before making an application for contact should remain. This prevents hopeless or vexatious applications that are not in the interests of the child”.

The Government accepted this recommendation and this remained the government position of the Coalition and current Conservative Government. I think this position and the current state of the law is wrong. Grandparents are not randomly making vexatious applications to see their grandchildren. In an open society we should make it easier for an access to justice and where safe a desire to bring families together, or guarantee such relationships.

This additional burden is unnecessary and undesirable. It should be abolished. It is an additional layer to create disharmony between the family members and is not in my opinion child focused or family focused. It is interesting to note that in Scotland, ministers are considering a legal presumption that children stay in touch with grandparents after a divorce or separation, giving a strong signal to couples, courts and families. This must be right. As a barrister specialising in children law, I am all too aware that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration. Grandparents being in their lives is rarely not in their welfare.

The law not only needs to reflect; it needs to act.

The financial cost for grandparents of such applications can be significant (they can always save money by buying my book : How To Represent Yourself in the Family Court: A guide to understanding and resolving family disputes (awkward plug) (available on Amazon and all good bookshops) but the emotional cost of losing or failing to develop such relationships can be even more extreme. There should be a legal presumption that children do stay in touch with their grandparents. The law can put in whatever checks and balances it requires to protect children (as it does now). But getting this right is in everyones best interests.

Jason M Hadden is a barrister specialising in children law at St Ives Chambers