2017 Inner Temple
Jack joined chambers in August 2018 after successfully completing pupillage under the supervision of Jonathan Buchan. He completed a family law pupillage, with a specific focus on public and private law children matters.
He accepts instructions in both public and private Children Act Proceedings across a range of tribunals from the Family Proceedings Court to the High Court. Jack regularly represents local authorities, parents, extended family members and children in a wide range of public law cases. He conducts hearings at all stages of proceedings, from the first appointment through to finding of facts and final hearings.
Jack also undertakes private law cases and has represented parents in cases relating to implacable hostility to contact, rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence, declaration of parenting and specific issue applications including change of surname and internal relocation. Jack also represents both applicants and respondents in respect of applications made under the Family Law Act 1996.
Within private law proceedings, Jack has a particular interest in representing children via their guardians appointed under FPR16.4. He has recently represented children in cases involving parental alienation, allegations of physical harm against a parent and complex issues relating to declarations of non-parentage and removal of parental responsibility.
Representation of a mother in a ten day finding of fact hearing involving numerous allegations of sexual abuse of children. The case involved children giving evidence following a Re W hearing. Extensive findings were made following acquittal at a criminal trial.
Representation of a client facing accusations of rape and domestic abuse in a four day finding of fact hearing.
Representation of a father facing an allegation of sexually abusing his child. The local authority involved in the private law proceedings supported the allegation and recommended supervised contact only. Following the finding of fact hearing including cross examination of the social worker and the mother, the Court found that father had not sexually abused his child. The Court made a further finding that the mother had influenced the child to repeat materialised disclosures.