For the last month the world has eagerly watched the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard defamation trial, as the two actors have exchanged lurid alleged details of their private lives.
Seeing two Hollywood stars fighting out such a battle in court may be titillating for many, but there are at least two important points to make about this public spectacle.
But before we look at those, we need to look briefly at the background to the case, and some of what has been said.
Johnny Depp and Amber Heard began their relationship in 2012. They were married in February 2015. There are no children of the marriage, but both Depp and Heard have children of their own: Depp’s two children are both grown up, and Heard’s daughter was born, via a surrogate mother, last year.
The marriage soon broke down and in May 2016 Heard filed for divorce. Within the divorce proceedings Heard obtained a temporary restraining order against Depp, alleging that he had been verbally and physically abusive towards her throughout their relationship.
Depp denied the allegations, and a settlement was eventually reached in 2017, whereby Depp paid Heard the sum of $7 million. The settlement included a non-disclosure agreement which prevented either party from discussing their relationship publicly.
Despite this, matters did not end there.
In 2018 an article was published in The Sun newspaper which described Depp as a “wife-beater”. Depp sued for libel, in the High Court in London. The newspaper defended the case, and made allegations of 14 incidents of violence by Depp against Heard. In 2020 the High Court found 12 of those allegations to be proven.
Still that was not the end of the matter. In 2018 Heard had written a piece for The Washington Post, in which she claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse, albeit without mentioning Depp by name. That article led to Depp issuing the present defamation proceedings.
In the course of the proceedings Depp has made various allegations against Heard, including that she had hit him, and that she had thrown various items at him. Heard, meanwhile, countered with allegations that Depp had hit her and sexually assaulted her.
The case is continuing.
So what important points can we glean from all of this?
The first point is not to be put off from taking your own case to court.
Seeing a court case about domestic abuse being played out so publicly may deter a victim from going to court to seek an injunction protecting them from the abuse. But they should certainly not be put off, for two main reasons.
Firstly, this is a civil, not a family case. An application for an injunction is to a family court. The family court (at least in England and Wales) will not allow the proceedings to be broadcast in any way.
Secondly, the family court will seek to protect the victim.
Protections for victims of abuse in court have recently been strengthened by new legislation. The special protections that a victim might expect under these new changes include screens in court to prevent one party from seeing the other party when giving evidence, the possibility of the victim giving evidence through a video link rather than in court, and separate entrances and waiting rooms in the court building, to keep the parties apart.
As indicated, most domestic abuse cases are decided in private. But the public nature of this one does bring the second point to light: that men can also be victims of domestic abuse, as well as women.
Obviously, the court has not yet decided whether the allegations that Depp has made against Heard are true, but the mere fact that he has made them is a useful reminder that, whilst the majority of victims are women, men can also suffer domestic abuse.
Domestic abuse is a scourge that can affect anyone. If you are a victim then you should seek protection, whoever you are.
As the reader may well be aware, we now have a new, no-fault, divorce system in England and Wales. The new system is almost entirely different from the old, so what do you need to know about it if you are contemplating divorce proceedings?
These are the six main things that you should be aware of:
New terminology
The first thing you will need to know in order to understand what follows, is that the new system uses new terminology.
Accordingly, we will no longer refer to a Divorce ‘Petition’, which becomes a Divorce ‘Application’. The ‘Petitioner’ therefore becomes the ‘Applicant’. (The other party will still be known as the ‘Respondent’.)
And the old ‘Decree Nisi’, when the court confirms that the requirements for the divorce have been met, is replaced by the term ‘Conditional Order’.
Lastly, the old term ‘Decree Absolute’ is replaced by the term ‘Final Order’.
Moving on, the ‘headline’ change under the new system is, of course, the removal of the need to prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage will still be the ground for divorce, as it was under the old system. However, under the old system it was necessary to prove irretrievable breakdown, by showing that the respondent had committed adultery or behaved unreasonably, etc.
Such proof will no longer be necessary. All that will be required is for one or both of the parties to file with the court a statement saying that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That statement must be accepted by the court as conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken indeed down irretrievably.
Accordingly, the new system does away with the need under the old system to blame the other party for the breakdown of the marriage (at least unless the parties had been separated for at least two years).
A feature of the new system is that, for the first time, the divorce application can be made jointly by both parties. In such cases the statement that the marriage has irretrievably broken down will be signed by both parties.
Hopefully, joint divorce applications will be a way to keep the divorce as amicable as possible.
Under the old system it was possible for the respondent to defend the divorce proceedings, by claiming that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down irretrievably. Defended divorce proceedings, whilst rare, would slow down the divorce process, and add enormously to the costs. They could even result in the court refusing the divorce, if it found that the marriage had not broken down irretrievably.
Under the new no-fault divorce system it will simply not be possible to defend the divorce. The respondent may be able to delay the divorce, for example until the court has considered their financial position after the divorce, but they will not be able to prevent the divorce going through.
Divorces under the new system may, in theory at least, take longer than under the old system.
Under the old system there was no time limit between issuing the petition and the making of the decree nisi. It was therefore possible, in theory, to get the decree nisi quite quickly (say, within three months), depending upon how quickly the court could deal with it.
Under the new system it will not be possible to apply for the conditional order (by confirming that the marriage has irretrievably broken down) until twenty weeks have elapsed from the start of the proceedings. This period is intended to provide the applicant(s) with time to reflect and consider whether they do, indeed, want to go ahead with the divorce.
There will still be a six week time period between the conditional order and the final order, as under the old system. A divorce under the new system will therefore take a minimum of twenty-six weeks.
As with other types of court proceedings, anyone making a divorce application will incur costs (there is a fee of £593 just to issue the application). And just as with other types of proceedings, it is possible to ask the court to order the other party (i.e. the respondent) to pay those costs.
Costs orders were quite rare under the old divorce system, but they could be made, where the respondent was found to be to blame for the breakdown of the marriage, for example where they had committed adultery.
However, as explained above there is no attribution of blame under the new system. The President of the Family Division has therefore made it clear that in the great majority of cases under the new no-fault divorce system a costs order will not be appropriate.
Accordingly, the party issuing the divorce application will have to bear the costs themselves, although if it is a joint application one would obviously expect the costs to be shared.
…………………………………….
Ian Walker Family Law and Mediation are a team of experienced family solicitors, that divorce can be stressful. We’ve introduced the Divorce Support Club. It gives people a safe, informal place to discuss, ask questions and to help you manage emotions, get clarity and focus on what you CAN do. The Divorce Support Club is a free service.
On the 15th of February the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced a package of extra support for domestic abuse victims and their children, aimed at helping them “to rebuild their lives in a safe environment”.
The package comprises a further £125 million, which is to be handed to councils across England to make sure safe accommodation spaces, such as refuges and shelters, can provide victims with vital support services including healthcare, social workers and benefits.
Interpreters, immigration advice, drug or alcohol support and other specialist services will also be funded and made available, so that anyone who flees their home gets the help they need.
The funding will be issued as an “un-ring-fenced” grant to local councils, who will then be responsible for making decisions on how the funding is spent to benefit those in need.
The announcement comes in the wake of the passing of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which placed a duty on local authorities in England to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation, amongst other important provisions.
The Government says that since 2014 more than £330 million has been invested to provide support for domestic abuse victims in safe accommodation, with refuge bed spaces increasing by more than 20% in the past 12 years. On top of this, £4 million is being invested in the Respite Rooms programme, which supports vulnerable rough sleepers impacted by domestic abuse.
Councils in Devon are to receive funding from the package.
Devon County Council is to receive the sum of £1,425,843, and Somerset County Council will receive £1,044,423.
In addition, smaller grants are to go directly to unitary authorities, district and borough councils, to complement this support.
These smaller grants include £591,456 for Plymouth, £379,351 for North Somerset, £312,242 for Bath and North East Somerset, £309,395 for Torbay, £33,267 for Exeter, £32,665 for North Devon, £32,482 for Mid Devon, £32,133 for Torridge, £32,110 for West Devon, £32,064 for Somerset West and Taunton, and £31,985 for East Devon.
Commenting upon the announcement, Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales said:
“For victims and survivors of domestic abuse, home is often the most dangerous place. I welcome the confirmation of £125 million to enable local authorities in England to meet their duties to provide support in safe accommodation for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The right support in a safe environment is integral to rebuilding your life after fleeing domestic abuse and this duty will be transformative in tackling the postcode lottery of accommodation-based support for victims and survivors.”
And Selaine Saxby, the MP for North Devon, which includes the town of Barnstaple, commented on her Facebook page:
“I welcome the Government’s decision to give councils £125 million to provide vital support services for domestic abuse victims.
“Domestic abuse is a horrific crime, and we must do everything we can to help victims recover and rebuild their lives.
“We have some fantastic local services in North Devon like North Devon Against Domestic Abuse – NDADA, and I am very pleased the Government is giving additional funding to Devon County Council to provide better services such as healthcare, social workers and benefits.”
The announcement was also welcomed by Mel Stride, MP for Central Devon, who said:
“The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was a landmark piece of legislation that widened the legal definition of domestic abuse to include emotional, controlling or economic abuse, strengthened victims’ rights, and placed a duty on local authorities to provide greater local support to domestic abuse victims and their families. It is only right that councils are given more funding to provide these services and help more people, in extraordinary difficult circumstances, rebuild their lives.”
As the reader may already be aware, a new system of no-fault divorce is due to be introduced on the 6th of April.
The system will do away entirely with the idea of having to blame the other party for the breakdown of the marriage, in order to get a divorce. ‘Adultery’ and ‘unreasonable behaviour’ will therefore be things of the past, at least in relation to divorce.
In this post we will look not so much at how the new system will work, but rather at the benefits that it will bring.
Roughly half of all divorces under the present system require one party to blame the other for the breakdown of the marriage, either because they had committed adultery, or because they had ‘behaved unreasonably’.
And unless you have been separated for at least two years, if you want a divorce you have no choice but to blame your spouse, even if you don’t really want to.
And of course the other party may often feel aggrieved that they are being blamed. They do not believe that the breakdown of the marriage was all their fault, and do not see why they should take the blame.
This in turn can obviously lead to considerable resentment, even animosity, which might sour relations between the parties for years to come (remember, where there are young children the parties may still need to deal with one another for a long time after the divorce).
Clearly, there may be animosity between the parties before divorce proceedings are commenced. But often there is not, and creating animosity when it is not already there is obviously to be avoided.
And even if there is animosity already, telling the other party that they are to blame for the marriage breakdown is only likely to make a bad situation worse.
When a divorce takes place there are usually very important issues that must be resolved, in relation to arrangements for both children and finances. These issues can be resolved either by agreement or by the court.
But court proceedings can be extremely stressful, expensive and time-consuming. They should therefore be avoided if at all possible.
By far the best way to resolve these issues is by agreement between the parties, possibly with the aid of mediation. But that requires the parties to deal with each other in a reasonable fashion. If there is serious animosity between the parties, then obviously this is less likely, and therefore the chances of settling matters by agreement are reduced.
In short, no-fault divorce, doing away with the unnecessary blame game, is a better way to bring the marriage to an end.
There will no doubt be many people who will be disappointed that they can no longer blame their spouse for the breakdown of the marriage. Rightly or wrongly, they strongly believe that their spouse was at fault, and that the world, or at least the court, should know that.
This feeling is understandable, but every effort should be made to put it to one side, at least when it comes to sorting out the legal formalities of the divorce.
And it may be tempting for someone to try to ‘punish’ their spouse for causing the marriage breakdown in some other way, for example in relation to arrangements for children and finances.
But the court is not generally interested in the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage, which will normally have little or no bearing upon arrangements for children and finances.
That is not of course to say that bad behaviour by one party will never have a bearing upon what the court decides to do. It can, for example, be taken into account if the court thinks it is relevant to the welfare of the children, and obviously the court will be concerned if the behaviour amounts to domestic abuse.
The main way that someone may want their spouse ‘punished’ is by them receiving a less favourable financial settlement. However, conduct is only relevant to finances if it is of a very serious nature. The sort of behaviour that may be seen in a ‘typical’ divorce, including adultery, will have no bearing at all upon the financial settlement.
There is simply nothing to be gained by one party ‘pinning the blame’ for the breakdown of the marriage on their spouse. Taking away that opportunity can only be a good thing.
No-fault divorce will hopefully help more couples to resolve their issues amicably. And that is surely a better way to divorce.
<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"></span>
We are lucky enough to say we won again!
Thanks so much to The Law Society for recognising Ian Walker as the winner in the Sole Practitioner of the Year category. Plus we were highly commended in the Excellence in Practice Management category.
Thank you to our incredible team for all their hard work. #LawSocAwards
The Ministry of Justice has published its latest statistics for cases dealt with by the Family Courts, for the quarter October to December 2020, and the messages sent by the statistics are somewhat mixed.
The statistics show an increase in the number of cases started in the Family Courts, at least during the quarter.
In that period 68,634 new cases were started in Family Courts, which was up 6% on the same quarter in 2019. This, we are told, was due to increases in most case types: domestic violence (21%), financial remedy (8%), matrimonial (i.e. divorce – 5%) and private law children (3%) cases. However, there was a decrease in public law children (3%) case starts.
Annually, however, the figures are very similar to those in 2019. In 2020 there were 264,091 new cases started in Family Courts throughout 2020, compared to 266,059 in 2019.
As indicated, the biggest increase was in domestic violence (abuse) cases, confirming the fears by many that lockdown during the pandemic has led to an increase in domestic abuse, due to couples being forced to remain under the same roof.
The number of domestic violence remedy order applications increased by 19% compared to the equivalent quarter in 2019, while the number of orders made increased by 20% over the same period. There were 35,984 applications and 39,427 orders made throughout 2020, up 20% and up 17% respectively from 2019.
The statistics also paint a mixed picture when it comes to the time for divorce cases to be dealt with.
The quarterly statistics show an increase in the average time for divorce proceedings, but the annual statistics actually show a decrease.
The mean average time from the divorce petition to decree nisi was 30 weeks, and to decree absolute was 56 weeks – up 2 weeks and 4 weeks respectively when compared to the equivalent quarter in 2019. The median time to decree nisi and decree absolute was 20 and 39 weeks respectively.
However, throughout 2020 the mean time from petition to decree nisi was 28 weeks and 53 weeks to decree absolute, each down 3 weeks respectively.
On average, care proceedings took longer, with fewer disposals within the 26 week time limit during which care cases should be concluded.
The average time for such cases to reach first disposal was 41 weeks in October to December 2020, up 8 weeks from the same quarter in 2019. 27% of cases were disposed of within 26 weeks – down 13 percentage points compared to the same period in 2019.
And in this instance the annual figures are just as bad. The average time to first disposal throughout 2020 was 38 weeks, up 5 weeks from 2019. 31% of cases were disposed of within 26 weeks, down 10 percentage points from 2019.
Care proceedings are now taking the longest time since mid-2013 – very bad news, especially of course for the children involved.
On the subject of case duration, the statistics tell us that cases with legal representation take longer on average. For example, private law children cases where both parties are represented took a mean duration of 24.6 weeks during the quarter, compared to just 18.2 weeks where only the applicant was legally represented.
However, these figures should not necessarily be considered to be an indication that legal representation is a bad thing. On the contrary, they could suggest that respondents to these applications may not be having their cases prepared properly, without legal representation.
Generally, the figures for legal representation continue to paint a very concerning picture about the effect of the abolition of legal aid for most private law family matters in April 2013.
In October to December 2020, the proportion of disposals where neither the applicant nor respondent had legal representation was 38%, increasing by 24 percentage points since January to March 2013, and down 1 percentage point from October to December 2019.
Correspondingly, the proportion of cases where both parties had legal representation went from 41% in January to March 2013 to 21% in October to December 2020, up 1 percentage point compared to the same period in 2019.
For 2020 as a whole, neither the applicant nor the respondent were represented in 38% of cases, whilst both had legal representation in 25% of cases. These were up and down 2 percentage points respectively compared to 2019.
The change seen in the pattern of legal representation is also demonstrated in private law cases, with at least one hearing where the proportion of parties with legal representation stood at 59% in 2012, compared to just 35% in 2020.
A statistician commented on the figures:
“The impact of Covid-19 continues to be seen across family court activity this quarter, with noticeable recovery as work levels return to pre-lockdown levels (seen in the number of new cases started and disposed across most areas since the first lockdown period). The negative impacts on timeliness measures continue, with work progressing to address the impact to the family justice system.”
They went on:
“It may be some time until improvements as a result of recovery measures taken begin to show, particularly relating to timeliness measures as outstanding cases are dealt with. Nightingale courts continue to be used to help cope with demand and help the court system to run as effectively and safely as possible during the coronavirus outbreak.”
Let us hope that we do not have to wait too long for these improvements.
