Vicky Haigh in Ireland

[johnhemming]

In my view not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

This is where we will have to disagree on both points.

On the one point I note that in the published judgment today Sir Nicholas Wall agreed with me that the committal proceedings are "quasi criminal".

Procedurally they are treated properly as criminal.

I don't recall any suggestion by you that the proceedings were "quasi criminal". Wall P merely refers to the standard of proof required even in cases of civil contempt. Technicalities aside, I do find it remarkable that this was the only passage you felt worthy of comment.

Still, he did rather bottle the invitation to address the question of abuse of privilege didn't he?

Procedurally they are treated as criminal and I would presume from the perspective of Article 6 they are criminal.

It remains that I don't think we should jail people in secret. AFAIK ECtHR requires a greater Article 10 protection for committals/criminal proceedings.

There may be an argument for reforming this but criminal contempt seems to be rather more problematic. I'd be interested to know how you believe courts should deal with those who simply refuse to obey their orders.

I think most people would agree with you about jailing people in secret, which I suspect is probably why we don't.

which I suspect is probably why we don't
Except we do.

www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/financier-sister-in-law-injunction-breach

Oh I see, you mean "secret" in its secondary meaning of "published in a national newspaper".

And "jailed" in its secondary meaning of "not jailed".

So you are saying that there are no reporting restrictions on the ZAM case are you?

No. I'm merely pointing out the difficulty in your attempt to use the ZAM case as evidence of "secret jailing" given that the case is not a secret (although I grant you the Guardian's circulation may not be what it once was) and nobody appears to have been jailed.

What I am saying is that people are imprisoned secretly in the person imprisoned is subject to an anonymity order.

Hence they are secret prisoners and it is contempt of court to say who they are and why they have been jailed (unless they are mentioned in proceedings).

I do know of some of these cases.

I accept that Zam was a secret prosecution that did not result in a commital.

Any judge wishing to commit someone to prison must do so in open court in public view. The fact that publication of some aspects may be restricted does not alter the fact. Using the word "secret" when what you really mean is "anonymous" comes across as hysterical.

You give no examples, of course I accept you may be prohibited. I invite you consider this scenario: an application to commit a parent for persistent and serious contempt. The respondent is anonymous so as not to identify the child. Is it your argument that if a committal application is made then the anonymity of the child is now secondary?

You give no examples, of course I accept you may be prohibited.
That's because I am. I know of others.

Is it your argument that if a committal application is made then the anonymity of the child is now secondary?
My argument is that the need for open justice for committal means that there has to be a very strong argument against this.

Many other countries manage to have effective care systems (far more effective care systems) without the oppressive secrecy.

If that is to be done, surely it is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary? The ball would appear to be in your court.

I think it is there in the 1998 Act.

A huge massive thank you and congratulations to Vicky Haigh and all involved for blowing a hole in the 'system', keep shooting and never let them silence you. No mother would go to such lengths if her fears were not true and those that are prepared to scratch the surface would not doubt you.

Thank you for visiting Mumsnet, racyrich. Do feel free to stay awhile and share more of your thoughtful opinions.

:) Appreciated hester. The case involving Vicky Haigh unfortunately is not rare and only the tip of the iceberg, i am so grateful she has had the gumption not to accept the decisions that they forced and mortified at what the authorities have done to the poor child. The Family Courts are an abomination and should not exist within the criminal justice system but entirely seperately. Judges should be specifically trained in and doing family work only, not as it currently. I hope Vicky does not rest till her girl is safely back in her care with those responsible for destroying her childhood being held accountable, a life times work and more:(

Wall P has now dealt with the whole "secret prisoner" nonsense:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2376.html

This is also quite interesting, if racyrich fancies a read. Not quite sure what 'hole' Vicky Haigh has blown into anything, apart from her own credibility and that of John Hemming. For the latter at least I give her grateful thanks.

ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/09/20/lord-justice-wall-lays-down-law-on-family-court-privacy/

Quoting from the judgment:

"Nobody in this country is sent to prison for contempt of court "in secret"."

and

"Had I sent her to prison in private my decision would have been unlawful and the Court of Appeal would have had the power to set it aside. I, myself, have been very critical of a judge who sentenced a contemnor without hearing mitigation and without going into open court to do so; see the case of Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248, [2007] 2 FLR 133, in which the order of the judge was set aside.
There is, of course, an automatic right of appeal against a committal order. Permission to appeal is not required - see CPR rule 52.3(1)(a)(i). Added to which, of course, the Court of Appeal sits in public."

Which admits that is has happened.

In other words additionally it requires an appeal. I will check a number of the cases where people have been jailed in secret (including suspended sentences) to find out what exactly has happened. It is important to remember that the system resists providing documents for appeals.

the underlying problem, however, is that secret trials are unreliable.

JH, why have you failed to get your party to support you in your crusade? You're in government, for christs sake - can't you find a more effective channel for pursuing your ambitions than on Mumsnet?

Or do your colleagues handle you with chopsticks?

hester the constitution does not allow ministers to sort out judges. That is a job for parliament.

Watch this space ...

Ooh I will

okaaaaay - I think I understand. Because a Judge was criticised in Hammerton for not sentencing in open court this PROVES that evil secret family law system exists.

But how do we KNOW about the case of Hammerton then? It was widely reported at the time and all us family lawyers took careful note of what went wrong there, so it wouldn't get repeated.

Possibly we all know about this case because it wasn't a secret? and there was a right of appeal that was exercised?

o questions! questions!

JH I echo Hester - there must be any number of campaigning, enthusiastic journos who would think all their Christmases had come at once if there was a grain of truth in what you believe. Are there 'secret' prisons built to imprison all these people thus 'secretly' imprisoned? Why don't you get that keen young buck Booker on the case? He seems knowlegable and impartial about the family law system and v sympathetic to young Vicky to boot.

WHY hasn't Vicky Haigh appealed against a judgment which has left her child living with her abuser?