Justdivorce.co.uk – Family Law Matters

on 6th september 2011 the justice minister kenneth clark announced his decision to extend the ability of the media to broadcast court proceedings, to improve transparency in the legal system. it’s often forgotten that cameras are already allowed into the supreme court, the highest court in the land. mr clark now intends to allow broadcasters to screen footage of judgements in the court of appeal, and later the crown courts. critics have warned that this move may provide a public platform for “eccentric” or self publicising lawyers, and later for defendants themselves if actual trials are also televised.
i for one am always concerned by those losing lawyers standing before the cameras outside court to announce that the judge got it wrong and that their client will be appealing “this outrageous miscarriage of justice”. these solicitors should remind themseves that they are officers of the court, who should not undermine the court’s authority in the apparent belief that it may help their client’s cause.
many people will instinctively think of the media circus which was the o j simpson trial, with all its lurid detail and show bizz behaviour from people who should have known better. it would certainly be a shame to go down that route. on the other hand, the prospect of having parliamentary business on the box was very controversial when it was introduced, but footage from the house of commons is now a routine part of the evening news. it still seems true that where the states goes we follow, and so presumably it’s only a matter of time before we have widespread tv coverage of the juicier trials taking place in the criminal courts, for better or worse.
family law is of course an area ripe for media interest. imagine how many replays you would have seen of heather mccartney mills pouring a jug of water over paul mccartney’s lawyer’s big hair at the end of their bitter divorce case – it would have been worse than match of the day! however it’s more difficult to justify media coverage of many family cases, because of the personal nature of the issues involved. in particular, the interests of children almost invariably trump the right of the 4th estate to sensationalise and mis-report cases to sell papers.
as many rich and publicity shy couples are increasingly realising, the best way of getting divorced is to do it amicably, and this applies equally to mere mortals. the undefended divorce service offered by www.justdivorce.co.uk enables couples who want to get divorced to do so quickly without having to go to court at any stage, for a transparent fixed cost. no headlines in that!
for more information visit www.justdivorce.co.uk/undefended-divorce.

what i don’t love about politicians is that they love cheap sound bites, without seeming to care too much about the collateral damage such remarks often cause. what the press loves about politicians is that politicians love cheap sound bites, especially those politicians who love being in the press. this media love-fest often serves to over-simplify complicated and important issues, a classic example being the law in general, and family law in particular.
i had the misfortune to pick up the daily mail last week, as always because there was nothing else to read – it beautifully encapsulates everything i dislike about our great country. i skimmed hastily over the obligatory pieces about how foreigners are taking all our jobs and how the welfare system encourages people not to work. i then came across another classic daily mail article entitled “divorce easier than getting a driving licence says top judge”. the judge in question was sir paul coleridge, who is indeed a highly experienced and respected family division high court judge, who for example presided over paul mccartney’s infamous divorce from heather mccartney mills.
the thrust of the judge’s views seemed to be that divorce has been made too easy, and that the consequent breakdown of the family is responsible for youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction, binge drinking, truanting and bad behaviour in schools. if that is true, then justdivorce.co.uk stands guilty as charged, since it’s whole purpose is to make uncontested divorce easier and simpler for those couples who have freely chosen that option.
sir paul goes on to claim that parents are far more likely to stay together until their children’s 16th birthday if they are married. the article didn’t seem to reach any firm conclusions, although the judge did propose that there should be a reasonable debate to decide what needs to be done. the piece also confides that sir paul is from an aristocratic family, which rather uncomfortably supports a typical preconception of judges tending to be out of touch with the common man and woman, if there is such a thing.
my worry is that the only alternative to making divorce easier is presumably to make divorce harder. it seems to me that you then run the risk of trapping people in unhappy marriages, which can be equally damaging for the parties and their children. by all means let’s have a serious debate, but it’s very important to avoid jumping to conclusions and to acknowledge the complexity of the issues. there isn’t a single blueprint that applies to all families. i’m not convinced that most politicians are very well equipped for this task, nor that they have a genuine desire to grasp this particularly spikey thorn – look at how many law commission reports are quietly gathering dust.
in the meantime it’s the job of the lawyers to apply the law as it is now, in their clients’ best interests. justdivorce.co.uk will go on doing so, and i am proud of the level of services that we provide. for more information visit www.justdivorce.co.uk.