Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
OP posts:
Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 07:57

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

Problems with her erstwhile legal advisors. At the moment they are refusing to give her her file.

OP posts:
Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 07:59

Possibly we all know about this case because it wasn't a secret? and there >was a right of appeal that was exercised?
We know about it because of the appeal which was heard on 22nd February 2007. The commital was on 27th July 2005 hence the case was secret for about 18 months.

OP posts:
Spero · 23/09/2011 08:20

If my daughter had been sent to live with a man who sexually abused her, I wouldn't need my 'file' to appeal. I would draft my appeal on the basis of the profound mistakes that must have been made in the judgment, no doubt ably assisted by the notes taken during the hearing by myself and those assisting.

How did the judges mistake in Hammerton come to light if what we have is a secret system?

Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 09:45

There are lots of judicial errors that are plainly wrong that are not appealed. I don't know the details of the Hammerton case, but it was clearly an appeal out of time and the case remained secret for 18 months.

Other cases are still secret.

On the issue of appeal one hurdle to overcome is the Court of Appeal registry that require certain documents (court orders, judgments etc) before they will actually accept the paperwork.

OP posts:
Spero · 23/09/2011 10:50

This is not a 'judicial error' . this is YOUR CHILD BEING SENT TO LIVE WITH AN ABUSER.

Any woman who GENUINELY believed that was what was happening to her child would not slink away on the basis that she 'didn't have her file' or she can't fill in some forms. Why didn't you help her if she is so incapable?

Ergo, I think VH damn well knows what a liar she is and it only with the support and encouragement of this such as you which pushed her this.

Shame on you.

JimmyS · 23/09/2011 13:15

"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."

Would it not have made more sense to do this fact checking before making the allegation?

JimmyS · 23/09/2011 13:19

"On the issue of appeal one hurdle to overcome is the Court of Appeal registry that require certain documents (court orders, judgments etc) before they will actually accept the paperwork."

This is nonsense. These are things which may slow the progress of an appeal but in no circumstances will they prevent a lawyer from filing an application due to the time limits involved.

Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 13:58

This is nonsense. These are things which may slow the progress of an appeal
but in no circumstances will they prevent a lawyer from filing an application
due to the time limits involved.
You clearly haven't had the court of appeal registry reject an application.

Would it not have made more sense to do this fact checking before making the allegation?
I know it happens. Hammerton is an example. I know of others, however, I don't know how many fall into this category and wish to check. Hence
a) I am right
b) Hammerton proves I am right
c) I have evidence as to other cases .... but
d) I intend doing more work to find more cases. This is really what the parliamentary inquiry is supposed to be about.

Why didn't you help her if she is so incapable?
I am trying to help her, but her lawyers are preventing action at the moment.

OP posts:
Spero · 23/09/2011 14:37

Hammerton proves you are wrong. How can it be secret if we all know about it?

ah, so it's her lawyers who are preventing an appeal. Of course. Well, get the Law Societyon to them pronto.

Or help her fill in the forms as a litigant in person. It's not the law that you have to have a lawyer you know. You and your friends seem to operate a number of websites providing help to people such as VH.

Why wont you help her?

JimmyS · 23/09/2011 16:44

"You clearly haven't had the court of appeal registry reject an application."

You're missing the point. No application has ever been made in this case, so the issue cannot be the rejection of an application which does not exist.

Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 18:37

No application has ever been made in this case
However, I have sufficient experience of the registry rejecting applications that I am not going to put together one without the right documents.

OP posts:
Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 18:39

Hammerton proves you are wrong. How can it be secret if we all know about it?
Hammerton proves me right. He was jailed in secret and 18 months later it was the subject of an appeal.

ah, so it's her lawyers who are preventing an appeal. Of course. Well, get the
Law Societyon to them pronto.
It is not the law society. However, we are awaiting a written response from them at the moment. They refused in an email to her and we have written making a request.

Or help her fill in the forms as a litigant in person. It's not the law that you
have to have a lawyer you know. You and your friends seem to operate a
number of websites providing help to people such as VH.
But you need certain basic documentation.

Why wont you help her?
Happy to, but we need the case file.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 23/09/2011 19:22

"However, I have sufficient experience of the registry rejecting applications that I am not going to put together one without the right documents."

Perhaps, but of course what you would do and what a qualified trained professional would do I hope you appreciate are not necessarily the same thing. Her case does not strike me as one for an amateur, however sympathetic.

Original poster
johnhemming · 23/09/2011 21:49

Her case does not strike me as one for an amateur, however sympathetic.
I have two constituents where the professionals said they would not win an appeal, but who won an appeal after talking to me. One was by me filling in the forms for a Criminal Court of Appeal application and the other was via the CCRC.

Hence I, as an amateur, have been more effective than professionals in a number of cases.

Her problem is that she cannot get assistance from the legal professionals without paying a large sum. It cost her 10K to defend herself in the case that I talked about in parliament (the attempt to jail her for asking a question at the meeting I chaired in parliament).

This is not a just system.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 23/09/2011 23:43

It seems a very large sum for a matter which did not as I understand it even involve an effective hearing. Be that as it may this is money she had available (she also appears to have the means to emigrate) which she chose not to spend on appealing the finding of fact hearing, which would appear to undermine your suggestion that she has somehow been barred from the courts.

Original poster
johnhemming · 24/09/2011 08:46

As it stands she does not have the documents to enable her to appeal the hearing.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 24/09/2011 16:22

Has she instructed a solicitor?

Original poster
johnhemming · 24/09/2011 16:23

No

OP posts:
cato1 · 03/10/2011 23:56

There are a number of cases where ostensibly a das been returned to an abuser and the procedure following Disclosures have not been followed.

Clearly there are those in the system who would wish to cover this up.

Obstruction in these and other cases is common, - failure to hand over files, rejection of appeal applications, rejection of permission because of lack of documents etc.

Finding of Fact hearings are almost impossible to appeal, as you are appealing decisions on the evidence which in the Orwellian world of the family Court sustem cannot be reexamined as it is the perogative of the lower court.

It is in any case clear the Court of Appeal would throw it out - see the comments in the contempt hearing - as it acts as a sort of "roof" for the misdeeds of the lower courts in the system.

It is an entirely secret system as the High Court was doing the jailing for anyone revealing any deatails whatsoever, which John Hemmings got round by reveling it on the flor of the House of Commons.

Some judges announced THAT was contempt and John Hemming should be jailed, even though they would be in contempt of parliament and be imprisoned in St. Stephen's tower, a suitable punishment for the family court judges concerned.

It is common to argue;-

the abuse is untrue

the mother taught it to the child.

she emotionally abused the child

so the child must be taken from her and she can't see it.

racyrich · 07/10/2011 12:12

Thank you Spero for the link, glad to see Nicolas Wall has had a re-think and let?s hope he continues to try and rebuff the critics- all adds to that hole getting larger. It is a sad fact as Harriet Harman announced in the House of Commons that around 300 parents a year are jailed through the Family Courts, these proceedings are conducted in private (secret), back against the wall Wall.

Hester more MP?s should be mingling, facilitating and raising awareness (in general) on sites like this this one, John should be applauded not goaded and shunned.

Fab to hear that Vicky is planning her next move and has not been silenced. It is understandable how difficult it must be to prepare when the system has proven it serves its own needs and certainly not those of the child. Vicky will be considering her options very carefully as I?m sure she doesn?t want anyone to fail her daughter yet again. She has to tread very carefully as they have already threatened to take away her new born 2nd child, far worse than prison. Vicky is definitely no slinker as her history shows, despairing and exhausted maybe. This is a cause we should all be supporting and if I knew how I would more? I hope the documents that are needed come soon, keep riding the bureaucracy, follow your hearts and try to have faith the truth will prevail. Peace, love and light to all x

hester · 07/10/2011 19:49

racyrich, MPs are welcome here - to talk, listen, discuss and debate. JH doesn't do that: he lectures, refuses to listen, refuses to engage in proper debate, and insults the principles and intelligence of the adopters, social workers and lawyers on here. Not once have I ever heard him discuss how these issues affect children - let alone our children, who have all been through the system he so despises.

I see nothing to applaud. He is in this game for his own greater glory, not for the children.

Original poster
johnhemming · 08/10/2011 09:45

JH doesn't do that:
No I disagree with you. I accept that you don't like that, but that is life.

OP posts:
hester · 08/10/2011 22:31

'Disagreeing' implies an element of engagement and attention - even of respect - that your contributions lack. I think they speak volumes about your attitudes to women.

Original poster
johnhemming · 09/10/2011 09:17

Your problem is you rely on making unsupported criticisms. See your last two posts as examples.

Independent observers (the woman on the Clapham omnibus) can come to their own conclusions.

OP posts:
FlangelinaBallerina · 09/10/2011 16:12

I've not read beyond page 5 of this thread so am not sure if this is already covered, but just want to correct something. John Hemmings says the local authority control the experts appointed in care proceedings. They don't. Parties agree them. I have personally been involved in cases representing parents when we found our own expert, and the other parties agreed to it. They could have objected if they'd wanted.

This is not to particularly defend the system by the way. I trained in family law, but there's a reason I chose not to practice it. I did see one case where it looked to me (and I am not an expert) like the LA had it in for the mother. I did wonder whether they'd have taken quite the same approach had one of the children in question not been so damn adoptable- he was a healthy white blonde baby. So I wouldn't say the system has no flaws. Having said that, as I understand it, the reason why LAs have adoption quotas or whatever they're called is to motivate them to try and actually do something about getting kids adopted. Before the quotas, it wasn't a priority- which is also wrong. But that's not to say that the change hasn't had any negative consequences.