Divine intervention as Auld vows to abolish oath

The fall-out from the Auld report continues apace this week, with plans contained in the report to abolish the oath that witnesses swear in court and replace it with one that makes no reference to God, 'provoking protests from Britain's church leaders' The Independent (22 October).

Under the proposed changes - suggested because 'the traditional oath is no longer relevant in many people's lives' and is seen as a 'quaint court ritual' - members of all faiths would swear a secular oath 'which requires them simply to promise to tell the truth'.

Disquiet was widespread, with the Catholic Church 'wanting to contribute to the debate before the government reached any conclusions on the subject of oaths', and the Church of England 'very concerned' at the attempt to 'divorce religion from justice'.Another significant split was that of White v White, a landmark divorce case decided in the House of Lords last October, a case which is 'studied by lawyers in the desperate hope of understanding how a rich couple's assets are meant to be divided up on divorce', revisited by the Daily Telegraph (16 October) ahead of a costs hearing this week.

Divided between husband, wife and lawyers, that is.On their divorce, Mrs White found herself awarded 41% of the family's farming business - an impressive 1.5 million - with the judge indicating that 'it was no longer fair to discriminate between husbands and wives on assessing their contributions to a marriage'.

With wives traditionally awarded only a fraction of their rich husbands' fortunes, this decision set something of a precedent, with this new 'philosophy of fairness permeating down to ordinary cases'.

However, with the 'astronomical' costs for the case totalling 'about 1 million' for both parties, Mrs White estimates that she has ended up with 'just under 1 million', which she is 'understandably not too pleased about'.To other marriages, and Steve Clark, the husband of solicitor Sally Clark - jailed in 1999 for murdering her two baby sons - this week spoke of his wife as 'the gentlest, kindest person I've ever known...

without an ounce of violence in her body' (The Times, 23 October).

He admitted that 'I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered' the possibility of his wife killing their children, but 'immediately I dismissed the idea, as it's inconceivable that she did anything to hurt her babies'.

The couple's hopes now lie with an appeal about to be lodged with the Criminal Cases Review Commission on grounds of fresh medical evidence, an appeal that his wife is quietly confident of succeeding: 'She was brought up with a highly developed respect for the law, and she still thinks the system will see justice done and her innocence will prevail.'And finally, a competitor for the most stressful weekend of all time, with The Times reporting on the 'manic weekend' endured by the legal team whose job it was to sort out the Railtrack administration before its spectacular collapse last week (23 October).

The dreaded telephone call came late on a Friday evening to CMS Cameron McKenna partner Robert Hickmott, who, along with his two assistants, 'had just 48 hours to navigate their team of 20 commercial lawyers through the hazardous waters of one of the most controversial administrations for 50 years'.The preparations eventually came together in time for the Sunday afternoon court hearing, when, frustratingly after a weekend of hard work for one of the biggest stories of any other year, 'journalists suddenly start leaving - the bombing of Afghanistan has begun'.Victoria MacCallum