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

"There is some material here about secret prisoners"

I think I've spotted the passage. By "prisoner" you mean someone put in a home due to incapacity. A somewhat melodramatic usage some might say. I know that few members of the public read Hansard but I'm not sure on what basis you use the word "secret". Perhaps you meant to say "anonymous".

Try reading more.

"Try reading more."

Well I've read a fair bit. Your supporters are very active but seem to be rather odd, ranging from vengeful spouses to David Icke and Liverpool BNP. Do you have any reputable source which you would recommend in support of your theories?

My supporters include solicitors, social workers and judges, but they don't want be identified.

"My supporters include solicitors, social workers and judges, but they don't want be identified."

Well obviously if someone doesn't wish to be identified, you have to respect that don't you?

That wasn't quite my question. I was looking for a respectable source which backed up your theories.

That is the challenge with the constitutional structure that this country has. People are too frightened to speak out. That is why it is parliament's job to deal with this.

Why would a judge be afraid to speak out?

Lord Justice Wall seemed to have no problem expressing a view.

And what exactly are you asking parliament to do?

I am asking parliament amongst other things to find out how many people are secret prisoners and why.

I am also looking at some of the injunctions that prevent regulators from regulating.

[dashes in to offer Jimmy a nice cup of tea and some Kendal mint cake, dashes out again before she is tempted to join in]

Coming back to the RP case:

"In the appeal proceedings the first applicant was assisted by the second applicant and Mr John Hemming MP, who acted as her McKenzie friends. She was also assisted by the Bar?s pro bono unit, which gave her advice. Junior Counsel was present throughout the hearing but did not address the court. Instead, the case was presented by RP and by Mr Hemming. RP alleged that she had not been informed that the Official Solicitor would be representing her until after the hearing; that the involvement of the Official Solicitor was unlawful as she had the capacity to instruct her own solicitor; that the clinical psychologist had failed to apply the correct test in assessing capacity, namely the test identified in the Court of Appeal decision of Masterman-Lister; and finally, that if she lacked capacity, a family member should have been appointed as her litigation friend. "

Note: "the case was presented by RP ...".

So someone who was deemed too stupid to instruct a solicitor was presenting her own case.

And the judges took the view that notwithstanding her ability to present her own case she did not have litigation capacity.

Litigation capacity is not about understanding the legal procedures, but about understanding what the case is about.

I happen to have the transcript of what she said at the court hearing and how she responded to the questions. She clearly had not only litigation capacity, but was able to present her own case to the court.

"However, there are statements that are so clearly and transparently absurd that they should be discounted notwithstanding the qualifications of the person who is making them."

John, that's one of the funniest things I have read all day.

Secret prisoners? See this is why we need a tinfoil hat emoticon.

"So someone who was deemed too stupid to instruct a solicitor was presenting her own case."

She may have been presenting a case. I doubt very much it was hers. I get the impression the Court didn't think so either.

"She clearly had not only litigation capacity, but was able to present her own case to the court."

No need for you to be there at all then.

"I am asking parliament amongst other things to find out how many people are secret prisoners and why."

Still haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Do you mean people taken into care? The Man in the Iron Mask? What on earth, in plain English, is a "secret prisoner" when he or she is at home?

I'd still like to know why all your claimed supporters in the judiciary are so scared. If they agree with you that their colleagues are on the take then you'd imagine they'd want it dealt with wouldn't you?

Just noticed this:

"Junior Counsel was present throughout the hearing but did not address the court."

I think I know why. Care to share with the group?

Why would that be, Jimmy?

708. A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court:

(a) is personally responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case and must exercise personal judgement upon the substance and purpose of statements made and questions asked;

(b) must not unless invited to do so by the Court or when appearing before a tribunal where it is his duty to do so assert a personal opinion of the facts or the law;

(c) must ensure that the Court is informed of all relevant decisions and legislative provisions of which he is aware whether the effect is favourable or unfavourable towards the contention for which he argues;

(d) must bring any procedural irregularity to the attention of the Court during the hearing and not reserve such matter to be raised on appeal;

(e) must not adduce evidence obtained otherwise than from or through the client or devise facts which will assist in advancing the lay client's case;

(f) must not make a submission which he does not consider to be properly arguable;

(g) must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify insult or annoy either a witness or some other person;

(h) must if possible avoid the naming in open Court of third parties whose character would thereby be impugned;

(i) must not by assertion in a speech impugn a witness whom he has had an opportunity to cross-examine unless in cross-examination he has given the witness an opportunity to answer the allegation;

(j) must not suggest that a victim, witness or other person is guilty of crime, fraud or misconduct or make any defamatory aspersion on the conduct of any other person or attribute to another person the crime or conduct of which his lay client is accused unless such allegations go to a matter in issue (including the credibility of the witness) which is material to the lay client's case and appear to him to be supported by reasonable grounds.

[Code of Conduct, Bar of England and Wales]

You'd get the impression from this thread that all social workers are infallible and all court decisions are just. Yet we know miscarriages of justice are inevitable given human frailty and the inevitable imperfection of any system designed by human beings. No-one argues for the abolition of the right to appeal in criminal cases - so why the absolute refusal to accept that miscarriages of justice must occur in the family courts, too?

Why the refusal to accept that social workers are only human and therefore must make mistakes, just like doctors, nurses, teachers, accountants, engineers and every other ruddy professional (and non-professional)? I knew a consultant chartered engineer with years of experience and a whole alphabet soup of letters after his name who gave a car park the all clear the day before it fell down. (He wasn't incompetent, btw, but it's a long story.)

There clearly must be miscarriages of justice and denial and outrage at the very thought that they might occur does nothing to serve the interests of children or families.

And there clearly are very serious problems with the system. The family and criminal courts allowed people like Roy Meadows and David Southall to spout unsubstantiated bollocks way beyond their areas of competence for years, ruining countless lives. The Rochdale social workers who got terribly carried away with excitement over 'satanic abuse' and are proven perjurers, caught on their own tapes, were still practising a couple of years ago and presumably still are. Never mind that their own tapes show them tormenting children and bullying them into going along with the social workers' preferred version of events.

I know a very eminent doctor - one of the most eminent in the country - who was threatened by social workers for failing to fall into line with their ridiculous theories about one of his patients. Because as a practical GP, he said 'hang on a second, shouldn't we look for the most common reasonable explanation first before reaching for far-fetched and very rare explanations?'. People like those social workers, who can't even accept that very basic level of checks on their thinking and decisions shouldn't be given any responsibility, let alone such massive power for good or ill.

"You'd get the impression from this thread that all social workers are infallible and all court decisions are just. "

You would? Who said this?

The OP story continues
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8598677/Social-workers-see-sense-its-just-a-shame-theyre-not-ours.html

Indeed it does. I'm a little puzzled as to how a woman in Notts on her way to London accidentally bumps into someone she is restrained from contacting in a petrol station in Yorkshire. That is bad luck.

So did you advise her to jump bail as well?

I have advised her to deal with criminal lawyers in respect of that aspect of her situation.

I may be in a good position to explain the niceties of the Hague Convention, Brussells II and the Irish Constitution, but I don't generally get involved in the details of criminal proceedings - although I did have ex-Senator Stuart Syvret in my flat for a while.

I'm just asking whether she was on bail when you advised her to skip the country. It's not a difficult question.

john hemming - i'm pleased to see that you are able to explain the niceties of the irish constitution.

i would very much like you to tell me about the irish constitution and the rights of the child.

Guess what? It turns out that the man John Hemming abused parliamentary privilege in order to help smear was completely innocent after all. One of his fanclub apparently has been banged up today for nine months.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028908/Daughter-race-horse-trainer-centre-custody-battle-coached-claim-father-sexually-abused-her.html

That seems so tragic for everyone involved. By making false allegations, that mum has probably damaged her relationship with her daughter irreparably, I just hope she has the support to work it all out when she's older. Poor kid.

I wish all these cases could be kept properly confidential (not "secret") when they relate to children's lives. Presumably the judge felt he had no choice but to make the judgement public given that so much informationwas already out there about the dad, but I hope the little girl isn't identifiable. It reminds me of the feedback from young people during the review into opening up the Family Courts, where the consensus was on keeping things confidential so their private lives could remain private.