See the previous post on this subject here .
And again compare this:
Mrs Justice Pauffley has noticed the practice of judges rubber stamping the wishes of [others] without even so much as checking the information they provide or examining it through a fair hearing. And whilst some may argue that judges rely on ‘experts’ to provide information and guide them on outcomes, the reports provided were never meant to be taken ‘as read’. That has become common practice in our courts and factors such as time pressures and resources are irrelevant here. Breaking procedure is simply not an option.
Judge of The Week: Mrs Justice Pauffley
… with the Scottish Government’s March 2016 “Instructions to Child Welfare Reporters” (formerly known as Bar Reporters):
Format of Report
Your report should set out clearly and concisely the facts which you have found established and which lead you to the conclusions and recommendations which you are making to the court. Your report has been ordered by the court in order to ascertain matters of fact and in order to enable the presiding sheriff to better regulate interim matters at a child welfare hearing. It is not appropriate for you to indicate that you have been unable to formulate a clear view as to appropriate next steps in the case and that the matter should simply proceed to proof. [Emphasis added]
Instructions to Child Welfare Reporters: Edition 1 (March 2016), page 3 [Published 22 March 2016]
This surely is a remarkable instruction, and given that the majority of Bar/Child Welfare Reporters are private practice solicitors without any welfare qualifications, training or experience (and the lack of any formal appointment criteria for these posts), a matter Read the rest of this entry »