Skip to main content

Secret Imprisonments and the RCJ press office

What we know (and was reported by PA) is that at a hearing which started at 9.30am in Court 35 in the RCJ Theis J committed a woman to jail.
On 2nd August Sir James Munby the President of the Family Division sent out a circular which clarified the practice directions of May and June. The circular is Here in a PDF form, but this is what it said.
From: President of FD 
Sent: 02 August 2013 11:02 
To: ZZ RCJ Family High Court Judges; ZZ DFJs; ZZHMCTS Justices Clerks; Arbuthnot, 
District Judge 

Dear All, 

You will recall the Guidance on Committals issued by the LCJ and me on 3 May 2013 and the 
supplemental Guidance I issued on 4 June 2013. In relation to the latter may I remind you of 
paragraph 5. 

A question has arisen as to whether paragraph 6 of the original Guidance applies in all 
committal cases or only in cases to which paragraphs 4 and 5 apply. 

Paragraph 6 applies in EVERY case in which a committal order or a suspended committal 
order is made, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. 

Paragraph 6 thus applies whether the committal application has been heard in public or in 
private and whether or not the contemnor has admitted the contempt(s). 

Paragraph 6(a) makes clear that the judgments to which paragraph 6 apply "include" any 
judgment given in accordance with paragraph 5 and any statement given in accordance with 
paragraphs 4 and 5. But it is not limited to such judgments or statements. The word "includes" 
has its ordinary meaning of "includes, but is not limited to". 

The principle is very clear and MUST be rigorously followed. NO-ONE is EVER to be 
committed for contempt of court by a family court or the Court of Protection (whether the 
sentence is suspended or takes immediate effect) without (a) the name of the contemnor (b) 
proper details of the contempt(s) and (c) the reasons for the committal being made publicly 
available in a judgment published on the BAILII website. 

In a case where the contemnor has admitted the contempt(s), the judgment required by 
paragraph 6 may take the same kind of form as sentencing remarks in the Crown Court, so 
long as (and this is VITAL) what is said in court and then put up on BAILII sets out the name 
of the contemnor, proper details of the contempt(s) and the reasons for the committal. 

We shall be subject to strong and entirely justifiable criticism if it emerges that anyone has 
been committed since 3 May 2013 without the name of the contemnor, proper details of the 
contempt(s) and the reasons for the committal appearing on BAILII. I very much hope that 
there are no such cases. If there are, it is ESSENTIAL that steps are IMMEDIATELY taken to 
ensure that the judgment is put up on BAILII. 

In the unlikely event of there being any difficulties with BAILII the matter is to be reported to 

James Munby P 

The circular was issued following a comment from me to his office where a judgment had not been issued. I think the circular is very clear. However, the press office of the RCJ don't think it is clear and are saying that it is OK that someone has been imprisoned and we don't know who.

The government have a responsibility to count imprisonments so we can check they are not happening in secret. They have, however, refused.


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…