Skip to main content

Sir Nicholas Wall on secret courts

This is where the president of the family division puts his view on the secret court system.

As usual he is focussed on the question of media access. This ignores the fact that there are a number of constraints on accountability that include the constraints on the media being involved.

There is the question of professional standards. As it currently stands the Health Professions Council remain of the view that they should not investigate psychologists who are reported by parties to family court cases without the permission of the judge. That is an unacceptable constraint.

Secondly, there is no academic access to the material as of right. That means that each case operates in its own isolated sphere of reality. Specialists cannot audit the evidence given.

Thirdly, when cases some to the court of appeal there is no publication of the original judgment.

Fourthly, the cases are oppressive for individuals who cannot bring in others beyond a mackenzie friend (and often an MF is refused). I remain of the view that anonymous reporting is best. It is, however, possible to achieve this through a number of routes including parliamentary proceedings.


Jerry said…
For the past Decade the Family Justice System has not been about the protection of Children, it has never come close, it has become a cesspit of cover-up's professional protection and protection for the judges, if only I could report half of what the judges do and say the public would be outraged, if Wall doesn't have the Answers then why is he in a role that allows him to operate the way he does. Oh wait Sir Wall I have an answer for that....
Dear John,

I always loved Jeremy Bentham's principle: "Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial."

In the case of family courts, I would agree that anonymous reporting would be best, for then at least we could establish statistics about whether children were removed right- or wrongfully!...

There is nothing justice should fear to show us if it is justice. Wall's speech in some way explains that family law is not about justice. I appreciate the parallel made between lunatics and parents !!! Yet why the society couldn't supervise the way judges treat lunatics ?

Only those who are on proceedings (lunatics, parents, children) should be allowed to say if they feel uncomfortable to be treated front of the medias and in public. But they are the ones who are first prohibited to tell the world what is done to them.

"Privacy of children" is definitely an arbitrary notion by professionals wanting to get authority on them. And it is frightening that we rely on psychology experts for what is good for children. Psychology is a bubble of soap, interesting but full of nothing. It should be kept an interesting avenue for helping families but cannot be called "evidence" in a court of justice. And as admits a psychologist (George Boree) : "Modern psychology usually relies on reductionism in order to find efficient causes."
'There is the question of professional standards. As it currently stands the Health Professions Council remain of the view that they should not investigate psychologists who are reported by parties to family court cases without the permission of the judge'

I think other professions that are currently overseen by the HPC might have something to say about this. No profession should be seen to be singled out for 'special treeatment' .The Health Professions Council will also need to determine how they are going to deal with perjury allegations made against social The obvious solution is to make tapes of court cases available to all.
Bruno said…
The confused and contradictory thinking of Sir Nicholas Wall is clearly exposed in the comments section of the following McKenzie link:

Even some in his own profession have criticised his stance on Relocation law and called for an explanation:

Now that he is retired, perhaps he will have the courtesy to give that explanation. The hundreds of "non-primary" parents whose children were removed overseas between February 2010 and July 2011- of whom I am one - would be very grateful.

Bruno D'Itri

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. …

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…

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…