Skip to main content

Justice for Families in The Times

It was nice to read the Leader in The Times Today which is linked and has the headline "Justice for Families".

This includes:
A large number of readers have told The Times this week that they have been denied access to papers that they need to mount an appeal.

The systematic raising of difficulties to prevent parents from appealing is one of the aspects of the system that I have particular concerns about. This leaves parents at the mercy of a single judge. Normally a particular family is reserved to a particular judge and if that judge takes a dislike to them they have no chance.

Normally the excuse used by their own solicitors for not giving them a copy of their own file is "they need the papers to get paid by the LSC." That does not, of course, prevent them from providing a copy of the file. It is, however, shocking how difficult it is to get both the judgment and the case files. Even if you get there papers get strangely lost in the Court of Appeal time and time again.

Rule No 1 with the court of appeal (Family Division) is to get a receipt for any papers handed in.

Comments

mary docherty said…
they don't want you to appeal,in most cases where people are "litigant in person",these people are not aware (or are so fearful) that they don't think to ask for a copy of the judgement.And this makes the process even longer as the litigant then has to chase up the paperwork.As in my case yesterday in front of judge pauffley,i got so upset and broke down.She (the judge) "abided" by any decision the LA solicitor deemed fit.It really makes my blood boil as the judge openly admitted (gave me the impression)that she had to abide by the decision made by the previous judge (coleridge) and "dared not" open herself to criticism by ruling in my favour.And so,yet another "gagging order" was "dished out".Even i didn't think to ask for a copy to be sent to me.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express. Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25). I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting. Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong. It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk cra

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here . This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in