Rules have now been published for the conduct of family proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 (r.10.26 Family Proceedings Rules 1991).The Act itself provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right (s 6(1)).Where a person claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way incompatible with a Convention right, and where that person is, or may be, a victim of such action, he or she may make a free-standing application under the Act to 'the appropriate court' (s.7(1)(a)); or may rely on Convention rights in existing court proceedings (s.7(1)(b)).

The 'appropriate court' is now defined as the High Court.A 'victim' is defined by s.7(7) by reference to art 34 of the Convention (somewhat unhelpfully); but the term may be taken to apply to someone who has suffered, or who expects to suffer, as a result of an act of a public authority; but it does not include someone (as in the case of judicial review) who merely has 'sufficient interest' in the subject matter of the application (and see s.7(3)).A free-standing application under s.7(1)(a) must be commenced within one year of the act complained of (s.7(5)(a)); or within such longer period as the court may regard as 'equitable' having regard to all the circumstances' (s.7(5)(b); or subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the particular procedures (s.7(5)).CONVENTION RIGHTS AND FAMILY PROCEEDINGS: ORIGINATING DOCUMENTSFamily Proceedings Rules 1991 r.10.26 has been added to deal with applications under the Act in existing family proceedings.If a party to family proceedings wishes to rely on a provision of, or a right arising from, the Act this must be dealt with in his/her 'originating document' or 'answer' (r.10.26(1) and (2)(a)).A party's documents consist of an 'originating document' (defined to include a petition, application (eg, Form C1 for children proceedings, Form A for ancillary relief) or other originating application) or 'answer' (a document served i n response to an originating document).The party wishing to rely on the Act must set out in the originating document or answer precise details of the Convention right alleged to have been infringed specify the relief sought (r.10.26(2)(b)).(Most of the remainder of the rule deals with detailed provision for notice to the Crown where a declaration of incompatibility on legislative provision under s.4 is sought.)President's Direction of 24 July 2000 [2000] 2 FLR 429 deals with citation of authorities (para 2) and allocation to judges in the High Court (para 3).JUDICIAL WARNINGSFinally practitioners are reminded of the warnings of the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolf (firmly seconded by Latham J) in Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382, CA (at 1387B-C): that when inappropriate points are taken by advocates under the Act they should be 'robustly resisted' by judges.