THE SECRET COURTS
OF ENGLAND
The Courts of
England and Wales almost invariably hold Family proceedings in secret,
to the great detriment of children, fathers, and justice. There is no
public scrutiny and no public confidence in a system of Family justice
administered behind closed doors. Anyone seeking to publicise the
injustice that occurs in the hearings is rapidly hit with an injunction
binding him to secrecy on pain of imprisonment, or is prosecuted under
the general law of criminal contempt. The words of Bentham - "In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and
evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity
has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice
operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice." - have
been fulfilled in the English Family Division where sinister interest
and evil in every shape do indeed have full swing. As the following
example demonstrates.
THE FORDER CASE
Recently (19
November 2003) an 11-year old boy named Harry Forder was placed in
public care by deputy High Court Judge Altman, not because he was
neglected abused or otherwise in need, but simply because he refused to
live with his mother under a custody order and insisted on living with
his father. Harry having run away from his mother and spent some weeks
living with his father, Judge Altman then sent High Court Tipstaffs and
Policemen to the father's house, who broke down Harry's bedroom door
where he had barricaded himself in, and dragged him off by force. Harry
had his own solicitor but the Tipstaffs confiscated his mobile phone and
prevented him contacting his lawyers. The Judge ordered that Harry be
put in the care of the local authority (i.e. official State care),
knowing that the boy would run away from his mother if taken back to
her. Thus English Family law has reached the ultimate absurdity: the
State decrees that the child who rejects his mother and wishes to live
with his father shall be punished by not having any parent at all. Harry
is still in care, desperate to return home to his loving father. He
spent Christmas in care, but the State was merciful: Harry was briefly
allowed to see his father through a glass partition. Legal proceedings
continue in this matter.
As for the father,
Judge Altman had him up for contempt of court for not returning Harry to
his mother - though the father would have had to use extreme violence on
his own son to bring that about. On 24 November 2003 Judge Altman found
Tim Forder guilty of contempt, in a secret court, but postponed
sentence, which can be up to 2 years in prison. Under human rights
legislation (the Human Rights Act 1998) all contempt proceedings are
criminal proceedings, yet the Judge insisted on holding the trial behind
closed doors. Around 50 members of the public, mainly from the powerful
campaigning group Fathers 4 Justice, sought peaceful entry to
the courtroom but were barred by the Judge aided by Security Guards and
the Metropolitan Police. So in England, if it has anything to do with
Family law, you can be tried and sent to prison all in secret. None of this has
been reported in the Press because of the vicious contempt laws against
reporting Family proceedings relating to children.
(Full Story)
CAMPAIGN FOR OPEN
JUSTICE
From 1995 onwards
Dr Michael J.Pelling conducted with others a campaign to open up the
secret English Family courts. Fathers 4 Justice (established in
2002) also makes open justice a key policy issue. Dr Pelling took a test
case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, based on the
failure of his local London court [Bow County Court] in 1996 to hold a
public hearing with public pronouncement of judgment in his own son's
custody [ or 'residence' as the English courts now call it] case, as
required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Certainly Article 6(1) requires, in unqualified terms, that
"Judgment shall be pronounced publicly" in all civil and criminal
cases. Dr Pelling argued his case in person at Strasbourg, heard
together with the consolidated case of Andrew Bayram on the same issue.
Mr Bayram was represented by counsel. The European Court of 7 Judges
rejected 5-2 both the case for public hearing and for public judgment in
child cases. The Judgment can be read on the ECHR Website at
www.echr.coe.int : cases B v.
United Kingdom (36337/97) and P v. United Kingdom (35974/97),
24 April 2001.
Dr Pelling took the
view that there had been a deliberate perversion of the law by the
Strasbourg judges, who had not upheld the provisions of the Convention.
Indeed, the decision conflicted with earlier case law of the European
Court. In the United Kingdom the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives
effect in domestic law to the Convention, came into force on 2 October
2000. Strasbourg decisions have to be taken into account but do not bind
the English courts. Dr Pelling decided to force the issue by publicly
pronouncing himself the Residence Judgment in his son's case from 1996.
It was published in full in a journal called CONTACT, in April
2003 Issue No.5. The journal in electronic form and the banned Judgment
are attached as Word Documents. The UK Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith
QC) issued proceedings by Summons for criminal contempt against Dr
Pelling on 12 December 2003 for, inter alia, publishing this
Judgment. Dr Pelling's defence will be that he was legally entitled to
publish the Judgment, both at Common Law and by virtue of the Human
Rights Act 1998.
THE MATIN CASE
That was not all
that Dr Pelling published in CONTACT 5. In January 2003 in a
case rather similar to Harry Forder's, Mr Justice Singer in the High
Court made an order returning Forhad Matin (then aged 10) to the care of
his mother, who had a Residence order, when the boy, like Harry, had
been living with his father for some weeks. Forhad had been ill-treated
and physically assaulted in his mother's home; he was desperate to live
with his father. He was at Court on 23 January 2003 as were both
parents. The father acted in person with Dr Pelling as his legal
assistant. The Judge sent a Children & Family Reporter [Court Welfare
Officer] (one Muriel Raleigh) to tell Forhad his decision that he should
immediately return to his mother for the next few days. The father
remained in the courtroom but Dr Pelling came out and found the
Reporter, in the public corridor outside, berating and bullying the
child into going home with his mother. When the Reporter lied to the
child that his father had gone away from the Court, so that Forhad would
have no choice but to leave with his mother, Dr Pelling intervened and
told the child the truth that his father was still there and that if he
did not go with his mother then his father would be there to take him
home.
Mr Justice SInger
himself then came into the public corridor on his way out, and was told
that the child was refusing to comply with his order. There then ensued
the extraordinary spectacle of an English High Court Judge trying to
enforce his own order for nearly half-an-hour by arguing with and
threatening a 10-year old boy into compliance. As Forhad related, the
Judge threatened: "If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a
place where you can't see your Mother or your Father" - which
Forhad understood to mean a threat to put him in public care. However,
Forhad resolutely stood his ground, and in the end the Judge gave up,
called everyone back into court, and rescinded his earlier order. Thus
Forhad went home with his father, who in due course in April 2003
obtained a Residence order. But Mr Justice Singer blamed Dr Pelling for
the failure of his order and said he would report the matter to the
Attorney-General for contempt.
The
Attorney-General's Summons of 12/12/03 for criminal contempt includes a
charge that Dr Pelling interfered with the administration of justice on
23/1/03 by intervening as above to correct the Reporter's lies and
assure Forhad that his father was still there. Dr Pelling's defence will
be that it cannot possibly be a contempt of court to tell the truth
under the circumstances of this case.
Dr Pelling in the
public interest published an account of the events in the Matin case in
CONTACT 5, as the lead article under the headline "MR JUSTICE
SINGER CHILD ABUSER". This can be read in the attached Word Doc and is
also produced below in this Email. The Attorney-General's Summons
includes a further charge of criminal contempt in publishing this
article. Dr Pelling's defence will be that there was no contempt in what
he published and that he was legally entitled to publish, both at Common
Law and by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v.
PELLING
The Summons was
served on 17 December 2003. No hearing date is yet fixed for the trial,
and certain procedural matters are in process of resolution first. If
guilty of contempt Dr Pelling faces imprisonment of up to 2 years.
This is the first in
a series of Emails being sent out worldwide. Men of so many nations are
oppressed by evil laws which punish them for the offence of seeking only
to be good fathers to their children. Those laws and court practice are
often backed up by stringent restrictions on freedom of speech in order
to perpetuate a rotten system of law and the Family law gravy train,
financed by the victims. You can help in the instant case by helping to
publicise the UK Attorney-General's persecution of someone who sought to
tell the truth about English Family law and open up the English courts.
You can contact the Attorney-General and put your opinion to him
(contact details to follow). And of course those who are able can help
by attending the trial when it takes place in due course this year at
the Royal Courts of Justice, London. In England there has already been
tremendous support from Fathers 4 Justice and many others.
This Email is
blind-copied to most recipients to respect the privacy of your email
addresses, but may of course be forwarded to anyone, individuals and
Press. Please forward also to University Law Departments, since the
legal issues involved are of interest in the English common law
jurisdictions. Further information will be put out about these issues as
the case develops. If you do not wish to receive further Emails in the
series please email me back and I will remove you from the group.
Information about the case is also available from the Website
www.fathercare.org .
I thank you for your
interest and support.
Dr
Michael
J.Pelling
_____________
See also:
Justice Singer,
child abuser
More:
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free
