Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This judgment is being handed down in private on 7th December 2006. It consists of 9 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
The Applicant H appeared in person Ms. Sophia Cannon for the 1st Respondent Mr. John Church for the 2nd Respondent Mr. Deiniol Cellan-Jones (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) as advocate to the Court Hearing dates: 22nd to 24th November 2006 ____________________
It is clear from the facts of the case I am considering (and ones where this issue arises) that neither of these provisions is relevant.
As can be seen from paragraph 4, there is an explicit inhibition on the provision of an advocate ("normally") to cross-examine witnesses.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.