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

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…