The British legal system is famous for being slow when it comes to adapting to change, but occasionally individuals inside the system try to move things along.

Judge Peter Jackson has hit the headlines for publishing an unconventional Family Court judgment about a fourteen year old boy involved in a contact dispute. The judgment includes a letter addressed to the boy, known as ‘Sam’, in which the judge explains how family law matters are resolved, and the reasons behind his decision. Jackson even invites Sam to reply to his letter if he’d like to.

The inclusion of a letter to a child in a judgment, and the invitation to write back to a judge are highly unusual but clearly designed to empower children going through the court process.

This is not the first time Justice Jackson has tried to address child rights concerns inside the Family Court. In 2016 he produced the first ever judgment incorporating emojis, with a view to making the text more accessible to the children involved in the case. Judge Jackson also used simple language and clear phrasing to make the judgment easier to follow.

Going beyond the current requirements of a judge has become Jackson’s trademark. He once visited a dying girl in hospital, whose case he was presiding over, at the young girl’s request. She told Justice Jackson that she wanted to be cryogenically frozen so she could come back in the future.

And you might remember a terribly sad case involving a 13 month old baby called Poppi Worthington, who died of horrific injuries at the hands of her father. It was Judge Jackson who listed 12 separate failings by police which may have contributed to Poppi’s death. Jackson’s judgment was followed by a House Of Commons debate calling for an Inquiry into her death.

Pro active and eager to inform himself, Justice Jackson was a participant at the Slovak Embassy’s Round Table discussion on child protection in 2015, alongside former President Of The Family Division James Munby. The discussion was held during the height of a child protection scandal involving UK based children from Slovakia.

Jackson’s interests don’t just span child rights and access to justice, he is a keen advocate of transparency too. In 2011 he was responsible for a landmark ruling in The Court Of Protection, where he granted the media permission to name all the parties in the case. It was the first time that a judge in The Court Of Protection allowed this kind of identification to take place.

A pioneer, Jackson clearly has several firsts under his belt. Whilst we think he can do more – and we make no comment about his line of reasoning in the recent letter to Sam, or the effectiveness of the emojis sprinkled inside last year’s judgment – these actions represent developments which judges in the Family Court should acknowledge, and try to better.

An interesting judge trying to reach our children, and listen to their innermost voices.

Charlie has today passed away. He was taken to a hospice to spend his final moments with his parents. Chris and Connie had wanted to bring Charlie home but were not given the chance to do so.

We are profoundly saddened by Charlie’s death, and offer our sincerest condolences to Charlie’s parents and all those who did not know Charlie personally, but loved him unconditionally nonetheless.

An incredibly difficult case, in which medical professionals clashed not just with each other, but with the parents on whether treatment would help or offer Charlie a better quality of life. A legal battle lasting 5 months came to an end this week when a judge ruled that Charlie could not go to America for pioneering treatment and would have to have his life support withdrawn.

All that is left are the most important aspects of this terrible story: two dedicated, loving parents who have lost a child. We hope journalists, professionals and the public will be deeply respectful of these, during what is an incredibly difficult time for the family.

A lawyer for Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, has told the High Court that “Time has run out” for their 11 month old son.

Lawyers for the parents withdrew the family’s application to travel to America for pioneering treatment after Dr Michio Hirano, the neurologist who developed the therapy, said he was no longer willing to offer Charlie the experimental treatment after reviewing results of a new MRI scan last week.

The parents will now use the funds raised for their campaign to create a foundation so that Charlie’s voice “continues to be heard.”

Our deepest condolences and heartfelt sympathies go out to Charlie’s family and to all those who felt connected to Charlie. It is a terrible loss for all of us. We wish Connie and Chris much strength, hope and courage. We all stand with you.

If you’re on Twitter, you can follow the latest developments as they happen, here. 

A recent judgment in the Family Court highlights the ongoing use of private investigators by local authorities to spy on parents involved in care proceedings, despite serious concerns that councils are using security firms to sidestep the current legal restrictions in place.

The latest case highlighting the practice was published this month, and involves a council which hired a private investigator to covertly film parents the council believed were lying about their relationship status.

The parents are now looking to file a civil claim for what they allege is a breach of their human rights after the Family judge ruled that the evidence was admissible, and that a separate complaint would need to be made within a different tier of the Family Court, or outside of the court itself.

Judge Moradifar observed that whilst the evidence may have been illegally obtained, it was possible for him to admit the video recording for the purpose of the family proceedings.

The parents went on to argue that the council’s use of the investigator was “misjudged and deeply unfortunate” and that the surveillance itself was not fair, reasonable or proportionate. They further alleged that the council had failed to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and had also breached their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Local Authorities and other public bodies hiring private investigators has risen sharply in the last decade, despite policy suggesting that investigators should only be used for the most serious crimes.

According to Big Brother Watch, more than £3.9 million was spent by public bodies hiring private investigators in 2011-2012.

In 2013, Former Communities secretary Eric Pickles commented on the use of private detectives, warning that, “Such powers can only be used for serious crimes, and require a magistrates’ warrant. It is totally unacceptable if councils are trying to sidestep these important new checks and they should be held to account for acting outside the law.”

A Freedom Of Information Request made in 2012 about Devon County Council’s use of private investigators revealed that the council had spent a substantial amount on covert surveillance of families in care proceedings. The breakdown was outlined as follows:

2008/09
£12,947.79

2009/10
£12,534.37

2010/11
£15,688.44

2011/12
£20,857.70

2012/13
£13,275.01 

This area is in urgent need of reform, and guidelines in the interim should be issued for local authorities on how and when they can use private detectives.

What do you think? Should public bodies be allowed to spy on parents in family court proceedings?

In an unusual move, US congress has granted UK based Charlie and his parents permanent residence in America so that Charlie can have pioneering treatment for a rare genetic disease he developed when he was only a few months old.

The move could allow the family to bypass UK court decisions and legislation which has, until now, stopped them from travelling abroad for the treatment.