Skip to main content

Judges miss the point on Second Opinions

The link is to today's judgment in the Webster case. It should not require an application to the court of appeal for someone to ask around to find if there is an alternative legal position.

This creates a mass of legal costs and a substantial procedural threshold to get what is relatively straightforward.

Second opinions should be available as of right.

Comments

moira said…
Why can't they have their children returned? Why can't the children have their say in all of this.

It seems more about pleasing adopters again than doing what is right.

What is the point of admitting to a miscarriage of justice if there is no justice in the end.

children have been returned after 2 years in care. If the process wasnt so slow they could have got them back.

If the relatives had looked after the children they could have gone back to their parents.Social Services tactics are too make weak excuses for not allowing children to go to relatives,thus making sure the children will never see their parents again.

Draconian state.
Andrew said…
I like the way the judges whilst admitting an error occurred (in a limited way) justified that everything done was “sound”.

The judges can side with you but against you at the same time, it does not make sense.
McKenzief said…
Where is the judgement about 2nd opinions...the European Court judgement that allows 2nd opinions? well done for bringing this to the notice of the world. Yes 'experts' are beholden to Cafcass who give them work and yes in turn they write what the officer/guardian demands. a new judgement comes out next week re Contempt of Guardian in an application to dismiss a Guardian, heard by The President as it was his rules that were broken (well the judgement will say rules were broken or they were not - if not its fudged!).

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. …

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…