Skip to main content

Vicky Haigh - imprisoned for 3 years for saying hello

The link is to a story behind the paywall of the Sunday Times relating to Friday's jailing at around 4pm of Vicky Haigh for 3 years.

On the way to the meeting in London (at which she asked a question of Anthony Douglas which was one of the reasons for which Doncaster MDC tried to have her imprisoned) she saw her daughter and went to say hello.

At a time at which the press would not ordinarily be there on Friday she was given 3 years.

Doesn't seem right to me.

It remains that she has not yet managed to appeal the original family court decisions mainly because the solicitors are holding onto the file.

It is also the case that the promised publication of various documents by the authories promised earlier this year has not happened.

I suppose keeping her in jail will make it even harder for her to challenge the original decision.

Comments

Hywel said…
ON the facts you set out then I might agree "It doesn't seem right to me"

Googling for some background I'm less convinced:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/23/racehorse-trainer-vicky-haigh-coached-her-daughter-to-falsely-claim-her-dad-was-a-paedophile-high-court-rules-115875-23365076/

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/jailed_ex_racehorse_trainer_vicky_haigh_locked_up_for_three_years_1_4070594

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075720/Former-racehorse-trainer-jailed-contacting-daughter-7-following-bitter-custody-battle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

It seems the court found that there was more said than "hello". There is also reference to a jury trial (not sure if it is this matter or something else from the reports)

Courts sit and sentence people to prison on Fridays in every town, every week.
Jimmy said…
Well there are two possibilities here aren't there

a) Saying hello is now a criminal offence
b) John is making things up again

"Doesn't seem right to me."

Indeed
john said…
The fact that nothing had happened between the events of 29th March and the court hearing makes it clear that an immediate custodial sentence was not necessary for a deterrent effect.

It was the breach of a Non Molestation Order.
Jimmy said…
From the one press report I've been able to locate it is clear that the judge sent her to prison because he was satisfied that given her track record any other order would be flouted. He concluded that locking her up was the only way to keep her away. A sad outcome indeed but I can't see she gave the judge any choice. Incidentally I see even Booker gave this one a miss in his column. Are you still doubling down on this one?
john said…
Which is why my point remains. There was no incident between 29th March and the court hearing about 8 months later.

Christopher has written about this case recently and I would expect him to write again. That, of course, is his choice.
Will Benson said…
This is what angers me about the 'justice' system.

They will jail you if you disrepect their authority but many violent offenders just get suspended jail sentences. They care more about their own authority then they do for people.

By the way, what is your agenda, Jimmy?
Jimmy said…
He has indeed. He wrote a couple of weeks ago that she was on remand awaiting trial in the new year, even though it appears she had already been found guilty at the time. I assume she was his source for this and he has continued his practice of not actually attending any of the cases he reports but relying on the disgruntled party for information.

Once again someone who has been encouraged to disobey the courts due to lurid conspiracy theories about the system. As before I'm bound to ask whether or not you believe you have any responsibility here?
john said…
Normal principles are that for a to cause b a needs to occur before b.
Jimmy said…
Just out of interest, did you attend the trial? If not, what was your source for your assertion that this was a "minor technical breach".
Hywel said…
John - the incident was in March. However it seems from the Mail report that the trial was in November, with sentencing recently.

That seems to me to be a fairly usual timescale for a matter going to Crown Court. Or are you suggesting that the appropriate course for breach of a non-molestation order is prison after a summary trial?

Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?
Jake Maverick said…
speechless
Jake Maverick said…
how can jailing be for talking ever be considered right, no matter what was said.....? jailing people for defending themselves/ killing in self defence is bad enough....
Andrew said…
If that court was indeed the Royal Courts of Justice then most of the judges would be hanging on ropes by the entrance.
Jake Maverick said…
Andrew, do you realise that they can and do re-arrange some of the letters in what you just said and use that as an excuse to lock you up and torture you in a ental instituion for years on end....no trial, no kanagaroo no nothing? obviously they log IP adresses here....one giant honey trap here! and the law would make John grass you up.... (????) apaprently.....non physicalle ntities can make even semi decent people turn into the worst kind of criminals...(ever bought into that one eithe myself, nothing if not principled here....they wnt martyrme though....)
Jake Maverick said…
wish i could swim

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/21/irish_isp_told_to_stop_using_3_strikes/
Hywel said…
"are you suggesting that the appropriate course for breach of a non-molestation order is prison after a summary trial?"

"Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?"

I take it that is a "no" then!
Jake Maverick said…
so why aren't 'officially designated' rape victims not jailed for pejury when the accused is found not guilty then?
Chrissie Heavey said…
I cannot beleive some of the comment from Jimmy, I was involved in a similar case where the father had been sexually gromming the child, the child said so himself in a police interview, the mother ended up being jailed for trying to protect her child by running away with him, it was one of the most discusting cases I have seen, yes I saw and read the evidence before you ask, yet because of the secrecy and judge the mother was not allowed to get her own experts in, the child now lives with the father and I for one pray daily that he leaves this poor child alone, however he is being watched craefully by people who know what happened as that is all we can do untill the family courts are open. I was her Makensie friend so had privvy to the paperwork. John keep doing what you are doing, its only satan and his workers that are trying to stop you from helping the poor children.
A police inspectors daughter and wife said more than 'hello'to my family and my disabled daughter was their target for disgusting vile written abuse NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. I have over 100 screen shots for the first 2 weeks of this month where they continue writing their filth

Twistedswords.blogspot.com

Vicky Haigh should never have been jailed disgraceful

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: