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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…