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.


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:

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."

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…
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 trial, no kanagaroo no nothing? obviously they log IP adresses 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
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

Vicky Haigh should never have been jailed disgraceful

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. …

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).


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.

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…

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…