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. …

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…