Search

In this article we compare how children's objections to being returned to their country of origin are treated in Hague child abduction matters in three different international jurisdictions: England and Wales, Australia, and the United States. We examine the relevance of children's views for the purposes of the 'gateway' stage of the relevant exception to mandatory return, and how children's objections have been approached in legislation, case law, and scholarly commentary. We critique each jurisdiction's approach against the objectives of the Hague Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We discuss how aspects such as the methods by which children are heard can make a difference to experiences for children and make recommendations to promote greater certainty and consistency in how children's objections are heard and considered across jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on hearsay concept. There never has been a time when the courts of England or the U.S. rejected all hearsay evidence; and there once was a time when hearsay was received without question. The Anglo-Saxon trial by ordeal and the Anglo-Norman trial by battle were essentially adversary proceedings conducted under public supervision in which the adversaries appealed to the Deity for a decision. By the middle of the next century there were a few rulings rejecting hearsay, and before 1700 it was generally accepted that hearsay was inadmissible except in corroboration of other evidence--a doctrine which emphasizes comparative value rather than admissibility.

The article reports on the complain of a primary school to a bid for longer opening hours by a clay pigeon shooting range in Lancashire, England. Headteacher Peter Jump together with 92 other residents have signed a petition preventing shooting range owner Thomas Edward Threlfall's application for permission to hold sessions weekly. According to Jump, the schoolchildren should not be educated to the sound of gunfire because shoots would disrupt the education of the students.

The article presents the author's views on the cost and delay caused by objections to development in Australia and England. The present system of objections provides any person with the ability to object to another's proposal for development due to the most superficial reasons, which may cost a developer a great deal of money and much delay, often with little financial risk to the objectors. The author noted that proper developments are being sacrificed by allowing people to object and seek expert environmental advice.