Skip to main content

The Courts - particularly the family courts

One area I have campaigned on in the past and would intend to campaign on after the election (whether I win or not) relates to the judicial system.

There are particular problems within the Family Courts.

As it currently stands the courts rely for public family law proceedings on expert opinion.  That expert opinion is provided mainly by employees of the local authority.  Additionally from time to time other experts are appointed who are theoretically independent, but in practice can be on real or effective retainers from the local authority.

Inevitably the recommendations to the court are driven by the management priorities of the local authority.  Those management priorities are driven by Ofsted who are required by central government to get more children adopted.  Hence we have a system where a key priority is to remove children from one family (for whatever reasons) and place them with another.

It may not seem rational, but that is the case.

Parents should have the right to have truly independent experts.

There are many other issues with the Family Courts.  One of the problems is that there is often very little actual law in the family courts.  The judges have a very wide discretion which leads to different judges making very different decisions on the same facts.  That causes a wider problem.

The secrecy, of course, adds to the difficulties.   One of my more successful campaigns was to get a reduction in secret imprisonment.   Injustices, however, are still hidden away by the threat of locking people up for talking about them.  I know of a number of cases where people have been imprisoned by the Court of Protection on wrongful expert opinion.  However, it is a criminal offence for them to be allowed to speak out.  These are cases where the court decides that someone does not have the capacity to decide where they live - see for example the imprisonment of Kathy Danby.

Hence greater transparency is needed so we know what is being done even if parties remain anonymous.  In theory the courts are doing this, but in fact they mainly don't.
Cases
These sorts of cases worry me: this case is where a father's views on abortion and homosexuality - not ones I agree with, were considered relevant.
This case is another one where I disagree with the mother, but don't think the possibility of expressing racist terms is sufficient or relevant to care proceedings.
In a wider sense there is too much toleration of false allegations throughout the judicial system.  I managed to get three successful criminal appeals allowed whilst I was a Member of Parliament.  This included seeing how the system is resistant to considering that allegations are false.  This is a particular problem also in public law proceedings where social workers who mislead the court have actually been promoted. It has to be recognised that from time to time false allegations are made by all sorts of things for malicious reasons and at times these allegations are also made to the police. The idea that it shows prejudice against victims to recognise this truth is absurd.


I accept that I am not popular with some in the legal profession for being critical of how the system operates.  However, the law should serve everyone and not just the legal profession.   You will identify a number of ranting lawyers from time to time who make vague and unevidenced assertions against me.  However, they will not shout me down and I will continue to campaign against injustice.





Comments

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…