It’s been so long since I’ve last posted and I’m sorry, it’s because my laptop got a virus (don’t open emails if you don’t know where they’re from) and I had no money to fix the laptop until recently.
I could ease back in gently but nope I’m going to start off with a heavy question –
If a child, aged 15-18 (basically a mature minor) wants to refuse medical treatment should they be allowed? They know the consequence of them not having treatment would result in their death, but they are objecting to the treatment anyway on a moral ground.
Tell me what you think then I will post the legal side of things after
This is disgusting and I hope none of them are released early
I can’t believe it’s almost been a month since I last posted! One thing I haven’t mentioned about studying law, (which I think a lot of you would assume anyway) is that it’s very busy, there’s a lot of work to do and it can be difficult to find spare time after all the reading you’re assigned and recently I’ve had A LOT.
I think I was expecting new exciting cases all the time and that clearly isn’t happening right now, however, I have got a few good ones saved up so that over Christmas you don’t miss me too much. Anyway the purpose of this post was just to remind you I am here and I’m still posting I haven’t given up on the blog so don’t worry I will have some new cases for you very soon.
So I’ve realised that I’m probably not going to be able to post every day but I might have a few friends helping me out soon so watch this space!
Anyway today I have a Family Law case for you, so brace yourself. In the UK the divorce law is full of flaws (in my opinion), the guidelines for divorce are found in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (don’t worry it’ll open in a new tab, now you can read along with me) in section one subsection one it basically says you can apply for a divorce if your marriage has broken down irretrievably (so it can’t be fixed) but that’s not all. You also have to prove a fact, which there are a list of in section one subsection two; the facts are – adultery, behaviour (it doesn’t have to be unreasonable), desertion, separation for 2 years with consent and separation for five years without consent.
The case that I’m going to write about today is Mouncer v Mouncer, which was a case on separation for 2 years with consent. The husband and wife in the case decided to separate but because they had children they thought they would still live together, for the sake of their kids (it was obviously a civil separation). While living together they still did stuff like eating together, using the same space etc. so not much had changed except for the fact that they weren’t ‘a couple’. After 2 years they went to court to get their divorce and the court basically said no. They decided that Mr and Mrs Mouncer were sharing family life and therefore had not separated.
In my opinion this was ridiculous; the couple were only living together for their kids trying to keep their environment as normal as possible but the courts obviously didn’t think so. I think this case sends out a really bad message as the separation clearly wasn’t hostile and there was no apparent bitterness, it was just two people who grew apart. The Law Commission had previously stated that a divorce shouldn’t be bitter or cause hostility so this case was a complete contradiction.
What do you guys think? Should the Mouncers’ have been allowed a divorce through separation?
I was listening to a song the other day and it mentioned the fact that prisons in the UK are private. I personally didn’t know this and thought I’d do a little bit of research. Here’s three little facts I found that I thought were interesting –
- At the moment there are 14 private prisons in the UK (follow the link to find out which ones they are)
- The first prison from that list to be privatised was HMP Ashfield in 1999
- Approximately 11% of the prison population are in these prison
So that means that there is someone (or some people) out there making money off people who have been imprisoned. In my opinion that’s completely insane as much as I believe in locking away dangerous people I don’t think someone should be getting rich because someones locked in a cell. Maybe that’s just me what do you think?
PS. Don’t worry I’ve got a case I’m posting for you soon this isn’t it for the week 🙂