Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Vicky Haigh - judgments published
The recent judgments have now been published in the Vicky Haigh case Doncaster v Haigh and Doncaster v Watson
I am not going to comment specifically on the Watson case.
I have always had and remain to have three concerns about the issues relating to Vicky Haigh. The first two were public.
Firstly, I was concerned that there was an attempt made to jail her for talking at a meeting in parliament. The meeting was one at which Anthony Douglas was answering questions and I was chairing. She asked a question of Anthony Douglas. When she asked this question she did not name herself, her daughter or her ex-husband. However, this was used by Doncaster as a reason why she should be imprisoned. She did name Doncaster.
I have some great difficulty with this from a constitutional perspective. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is specific about people's right to petition government. In the US that has been considered to involve all three estates of the constitution. In asking a question at the meeting I chaired Ms Haigh was petitioning the legislature and the government (Anthony Douglas is the Chief executive of a government agency).
It is really worrying if people are threatened with jail for complaining. It is even more worrying if they are threatened with jail for simply naming the bodies they are complaining about without identifying themselves.
This right is actually in the UK constitution in Article V of the English Bill of Rights. It refers to the Monarch, but in essence the Monarch is the whole of the state.
"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;"
Back in the late 1600s and early 1700s parliament used to act to protect people against whom action was taken or threatened for petitioning parliament - even if a formal petition had not been written. I think it should do so again.
Secondly, the authorities were threatening to take Vicky's baby at birth. I do not think that was a reasonable threat to make.
Thirdly, Vicky should have a right to appeal the original fact finding decision. Wall P (the judge dealing with these two hearings) makes an issue of the fact that she has not yet made an application for permission to appeal the decisions.
One thing Justice for Families does is to help people do is to make appeals (which starts with an application for permission to appeal). It was the case that Vicky's lawyers told her she could not appeal. It is still the case that she is being prevented from appealing - simply because her lawyers are refusing to give her her case file - claiming that they need to keep the file so that the LSC will pay them.
Hence there is nothing that can be read into the fact that no application for permission to appeal has been made yet. posted by John Hemming ¶ 8:05 am
I am not going to comment specifically on the Watson case.
I have always had and remain to have three concerns about the issues relating to Vicky Haigh. The first two were public.
Firstly, I was concerned that there was an attempt made to jail her for talking at a meeting in parliament. The meeting was one at which Anthony Douglas was answering questions and I was chairing. She asked a question of Anthony Douglas. When she asked this question she did not name herself, her daughter or her ex-husband. However, this was used by Doncaster as a reason why she should be imprisoned. She did name Doncaster.
I have some great difficulty with this from a constitutional perspective. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is specific about people's right to petition government. In the US that has been considered to involve all three estates of the constitution. In asking a question at the meeting I chaired Ms Haigh was petitioning the legislature and the government (Anthony Douglas is the Chief executive of a government agency).
It is really worrying if people are threatened with jail for complaining. It is even more worrying if they are threatened with jail for simply naming the bodies they are complaining about without identifying themselves.
This right is actually in the UK constitution in Article V of the English Bill of Rights. It refers to the Monarch, but in essence the Monarch is the whole of the state.
"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;"
Back in the late 1600s and early 1700s parliament used to act to protect people against whom action was taken or threatened for petitioning parliament - even if a formal petition had not been written. I think it should do so again.
Secondly, the authorities were threatening to take Vicky's baby at birth. I do not think that was a reasonable threat to make.
Thirdly, Vicky should have a right to appeal the original fact finding decision. Wall P (the judge dealing with these two hearings) makes an issue of the fact that she has not yet made an application for permission to appeal the decisions.
One thing Justice for Families does is to help people do is to make appeals (which starts with an application for permission to appeal). It was the case that Vicky's lawyers told her she could not appeal. It is still the case that she is being prevented from appealing - simply because her lawyers are refusing to give her her case file - claiming that they need to keep the file so that the LSC will pay them.
Hence there is nothing that can be read into the fact that no application for permission to appeal has been made yet. posted by John Hemming ¶ 8:05 am
Comments:
<< Home
"simply because her lawyers are refusing to give her her case file - claiming that they need to keep the file so that the LSC will pay them".
What happens if the LSC hold back the payment for 12 months or greater?
What happens if the LSC hold back the payment for 12 months or greater?
It should also be mentioned that no specific evidence has ever been produced to show that Vicky coached her daughter.No witnesses,and nothing said to that effect by the little girl herself.
Only the opinion of one judge backed up subsequently by two other judges who relied on the opinion of the first judge ! Probability 51% not" beyond doubt"Vicky has therefore been publicly condemned as a liar who coached her daughter to lie by L.J.Wall who simply read out a prepared judgement giving the local authority skeleton argument but not allowing Vicky to speak or put her side of the case.
Such was the "justice" meted out by the President of the family division of the High Court !
Only the opinion of one judge backed up subsequently by two other judges who relied on the opinion of the first judge ! Probability 51% not" beyond doubt"Vicky has therefore been publicly condemned as a liar who coached her daughter to lie by L.J.Wall who simply read out a prepared judgement giving the local authority skeleton argument but not allowing Vicky to speak or put her side of the case.
Such was the "justice" meted out by the President of the family division of the High Court !
Mr Josephs I have read the judgement which is very damning toward VH, and I am still not able to understand why this case is all ANTI VH,as there are police videos that accord VH and her claims against DT, is it true that VH denied all claims of abuse by her partner in a earlier hearing, and then denied such to a judge in another hearing, it states that in the judgement, so we have to accept so. The judgement is 100% behind DT and 100% against VH. Where is the evidence of her coaching child X? In HIS mind?, if so that is not evidence, but an Oppinion is it not?
Two questions if I may:
Firstly, it is now standard policy as I understand to place an unborn child on the at risk register in a case where, as here, the mother has been found to have abused a child. Would it be correct to infer from your post that you object to this policy?
Secondly, although it is literally incorrect, if not slightly mischievous, to suggest that Ms. Haigh had no right of appeal, it is fair to point out that it is rare for an appeal court to overturn a finding of fact, and no doubt she would have been advised accordingly. With three judges now having reached the same conclusion (albeit in one case without live evidence) the position appears truly hopeless. Having read Wall P's judgment it is difficult to see how any reasonable and fair minded observer could fail to conclude that the smears against Mr. Tune are entirely unwarranted and vindictive. I simply fail to understand why you consider it appropriate to encourage Ms. Haigh to persist with them. At this stage it comes across simply as stubbornness. What are you hoping to achieve here?
Firstly, it is now standard policy as I understand to place an unborn child on the at risk register in a case where, as here, the mother has been found to have abused a child. Would it be correct to infer from your post that you object to this policy?
Secondly, although it is literally incorrect, if not slightly mischievous, to suggest that Ms. Haigh had no right of appeal, it is fair to point out that it is rare for an appeal court to overturn a finding of fact, and no doubt she would have been advised accordingly. With three judges now having reached the same conclusion (albeit in one case without live evidence) the position appears truly hopeless. Having read Wall P's judgment it is difficult to see how any reasonable and fair minded observer could fail to conclude that the smears against Mr. Tune are entirely unwarranted and vindictive. I simply fail to understand why you consider it appropriate to encourage Ms. Haigh to persist with them. At this stage it comes across simply as stubbornness. What are you hoping to achieve here?
1. No.
2. As far as I understand there has actually been only one hearing on the issue of the finding of fact.
2. As far as I understand there has actually been only one hearing on the issue of the finding of fact.
1. Then I'm struggling to understand your argument. If you accept the child had to be placed on the register, it follows from this that the LA was obliged to carry out an assessment and yet you advised her to leave the country in order to prevent them from doing so.
2. There may be only one hearing so described, but all three judges have plainly come to the same view. HHJ Jones heard evidence and Wall P went back to the papers and reviewed them. Suggestions of a a rubber stamp appear missplaced.
I'm still curious as to why you are encouraging Ms. Haigh to persist.
2. There may be only one hearing so described, but all three judges have plainly come to the same view. HHJ Jones heard evidence and Wall P went back to the papers and reviewed them. Suggestions of a a rubber stamp appear missplaced.
I'm still curious as to why you are encouraging Ms. Haigh to persist.
1. The LA say this is untrue. Ms. Haigh is on video claiming that the person who told her the child was to be removed was you.
2. Noted
2. Noted
About six minutes in here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC06YQ12dMg
In fairness to you of course, some have suggested that what she says is not always reliable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC06YQ12dMg
In fairness to you of course, some have suggested that what she says is not always reliable.
Try producing a transcript of this and then use that to justify what you claim. I have just listened to it. It does not seem to justify your claim.
She states that the child was placed on the register whereupon you advised her to skip town. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but implicit there it seemed to me is a suggestion that the assessment would be unfavourable and she should go before the LA had a chance to get to Court. Otherwise I'm at a loss to understand why you advised this course.
Vicky claims she was stiched up by her lawyers who advised her not to persist in alleging abuse (despite the clear evidence of two police videos)as they said that if abuse was established her daughter would be put into foster care.She would have been guilty in ss eyes of failing to protect..;In court she just said she believed her daughter but went no further and this was seen as devious.Hence the simple "opinion" of the judge that she coached.There was however no specific evidence ever quoted by anyone in the court that there was any coaching.
Jimmy, I am intrigued to know what your agenda is. There have been too many injustices in the corrupt Family Courts of England & Wales to leave any doubt that they cannot be trusted. Yet you come along here and defend them and Wall P to the hilt! May I ask why?
Does anyone know how to contact Wall P, other than by letter? Does anyone have the email of his Clerk?
(I had the email address of LJ Wilson's clerk and was thus able to contact him via that method. It is a much quicker turnaround).
(I had the email address of LJ Wilson's clerk and was thus able to contact him via that method. It is a much quicker turnaround).
Ok
"I was advised by John Hemming the MP to leave my own country to protect unborn Haigh who was on the hit list. I received letter from Nottinghamshire Council saying unborn Haigh was now on a Child Protection Register and that she was at risk of emotional abuse. So I spoke to the social worker and said: "How can you emotionally abuse a baby that can't even speak?" and she had no answer to that. Anyway I took John Hemming's advice and I fled to Ireland to have a baby in peace."
"I was advised by John Hemming the MP to leave my own country to protect unborn Haigh who was on the hit list. I received letter from Nottinghamshire Council saying unborn Haigh was now on a Child Protection Register and that she was at risk of emotional abuse. So I spoke to the social worker and said: "How can you emotionally abuse a baby that can't even speak?" and she had no answer to that. Anyway I took John Hemming's advice and I fled to Ireland to have a baby in peace."
If you look at your transcript and your earlier comment you will find that your earlier comment was this:
"1. The LA say this is untrue. Ms. Haigh is on video claiming that the person who told her the child was to be removed was you."
The transcript (that you have written) is quite clear in that it does not say that I said that the child was to be removed.
She found that out via other sources.
Hence the LA's comments are wrong.
"1. The LA say this is untrue. Ms. Haigh is on video claiming that the person who told her the child was to be removed was you."
The transcript (that you have written) is quite clear in that it does not say that I said that the child was to be removed.
She found that out via other sources.
Hence the LA's comments are wrong.
Do me a favour, Jimmy, children are taken all the time for possible FUTURE emotional abuse, regardless of their age.
Open your eyes to the corruption!
Open your eyes to the corruption!
I'm not clear on what exactly you say she found out. The LA told the press as I recall that there were no proceedings. Are you saying that there were?. It's clear that she says that left on your advice, and you don't appear to dispute this. If the purpose of that advice was not, as I think you're saying, to prevent an assesment then I'm unclear on why you did this.
Corruption is only the tip of the Ice burg, what people and commenters on this blog are forgetting that while we can clearly read the "Transcribed" judgments, LJ Wall would have to approve the transcripts before publishing, that then gives him the opportunity to remove comments and issues from the public eye he doesn't want publishing, surely this is another matter that stinks to the hilt, only those in the court room could report the real goings on.
LJ Wall should not be The President, he is incapable of forming a judgment fairly and balanced, I offer myself to be held to that comment as well.
What ever the reasons behind the drama's that have unfolded in the recent months regarding this case, the fundamental point is missing, although John stands firm on the issue and that is, where is the justice in removing a new born baby from its mother on reasons that we know. even placing an un-born child on the at risk register is clearly wrong and I am sure is illegal, thats what the focus should be here, If the baby was not going to be removed, if VH was not in the situation she found herself in then there would be no need for all what had transpired.
We all know of Doncaster's Track Record, babies and children dying left right and centre, two young children nearly murder to young boys while in Doncaster's care need i go on.
I have dealt personally with this Authority, if they have an idea in their heads then is neigh on impossible to change their views, they will steam roll over anyone who treads on their toes, isn't that more what has gone on here, what ever the truth about VH and the allegations made by her are, it simply does not justify the actions the L.A took against those who try and defend the rights of a parent, if the courts and the system were open, just and true we would not be having this discussion
LJ Wall should not be The President, he is incapable of forming a judgment fairly and balanced, I offer myself to be held to that comment as well.
What ever the reasons behind the drama's that have unfolded in the recent months regarding this case, the fundamental point is missing, although John stands firm on the issue and that is, where is the justice in removing a new born baby from its mother on reasons that we know. even placing an un-born child on the at risk register is clearly wrong and I am sure is illegal, thats what the focus should be here, If the baby was not going to be removed, if VH was not in the situation she found herself in then there would be no need for all what had transpired.
We all know of Doncaster's Track Record, babies and children dying left right and centre, two young children nearly murder to young boys while in Doncaster's care need i go on.
I have dealt personally with this Authority, if they have an idea in their heads then is neigh on impossible to change their views, they will steam roll over anyone who treads on their toes, isn't that more what has gone on here, what ever the truth about VH and the allegations made by her are, it simply does not justify the actions the L.A took against those who try and defend the rights of a parent, if the courts and the system were open, just and true we would not be having this discussion
Jimmy keeps asking why Vicky like so many other pregnant mothers under threat fled the UK .Well,these unfortunate mothers flee to Ireland,Spain,France,Italy etc because social workers in these countries try to keep families together not split them up.Forced adoption there is illegal, as indeed it is in nearly every other country in Europe!Vicky received a letter from Docaster Council threatening to take her baby at birth ,so wasn't she wise to go to Ireland where such barbarities are illegal ? Only in the UK can parents be threatened with jail if they complain publicly when their children are snatched by public authority, and only in the UK are parents gagged when speaking to children in care and prevented from saying how much they miss them or from discussing the case !
Forced adoption and double gagging the parents make the UK the pariah State of Europe as far as social services are concerned and any parents threatened by them would be wise to flee to other European countries where these inhumane practices are outlawed !
Forced adoption and double gagging the parents make the UK the pariah State of Europe as far as social services are concerned and any parents threatened by them would be wise to flee to other European countries where these inhumane practices are outlawed !
"Vicky received a letter from Docaster Council threatening to take her baby at birth"
So you've seen this letter have you?
What exactly did it say?
Post a Comment
So you've seen this letter have you?
What exactly did it say?
<< Home
