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.
1:56 pm
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
3:52 pm
John Hemming 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.
4:16 pm
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?
4:23 pm
John Hemming 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.
4:35 pm
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?
5:00 pm
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?
5:06 pm
John Hemming said…
Normal principles are that for a to cause b a needs to occur before b.
5:18 pm
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".
10:27 pm
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?
10:44 pm
Jake Maverick said…
speechless
12:40 am
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....
1:50 am
Unknown said…
If that court was indeed the Royal Courts of Justice then most of the judges would be hanging on ropes by the entrance.
1:38 am
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....)
3:45 am
Jake Maverick said…
wish i could swim

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/21/irish_isp_told_to_stop_using_3_strikes/
11:41 pm
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!
12:37 am
Jake Maverick said…
so why aren't 'officially designated' rape victims not jailed for pejury when the accused is found not guilty then?
8:17 pm
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.
9:32 am
Eileen Pritchard said…
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
7:43 am
Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.
2 comments
Read more

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…
22 comments
Read more

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…
Post a comment
Read more