Yet another Family Law case involving parents going through child protection proceedings has made the headlines this week.
In this case, the parents claimed their barrister forced them to wait outside the court room, preventing them from presenting evidence about their child’s treatment whilst in care. An adoption order was made in their absence, and the judgment itself was never given to the parents.
The judgment then appeared on the free legal library BAILII ten months later, whereupon the parents discovered that the judge had been told by their barrister that the parents had in fact elected to stay outside the court room.
The mother subsequently applied to the Court Of Appeal for a fresh hearing, having been denied her right to be heard in the first instance. Lord Justice McFarlane, who was the appeal judge for the mother’s application, listened to the mother’s evidence and then contacted the mother’s barrister to get her version of events. The barrister did not reply for some time, finally sending a letter several weeks later, repeating her claim that the parents had chosen to stay outside the court room that day.
Whilst it seems that no other evidence was produced at the time, other than the mother’s word against the barrister’s, the judge ultimately accepted the barrister’s position. The mother, who made notes during the hearing, heard the judge make a remark in passing. That remark was, “a barrister wouldn’t tell a lie.”
There are a lot of concerning things about this case.
The first is that we know lawyers do tell lies. Carry out a simple Google search, and you can access publicly available information on this phenomenon very quickly:
There was the barrister in 2014 who faced jail after lying to police .
The barrister who lied about her career, and ended up being disbarred.
The trainee barrister who went to jail for falsely accusing her boyfriend of rape.
The barrister who lied and defrauded people and businesses out of hundreds of thousands of pounds, resulting in a jail sentence of nine and half years.
Solicitors too have been caught fabricating evidence, conducting make believe litigations and even making up entire reports that were said to be written by experts in the cases concerned.
So, Mr McFarlane’s view of the legal profession is a little naive.
It’s also telling that he does not quality why he believes the mother’s barrister over the mother. This would suggest that there was no actual evidential basis for his conclusion, which in itself is deeply concerning.
The Family Court is riddled with bias. Some of it is manageable, but for the most part it ruins lives, makes a mockery of the legal duty to conduct a fair trial and in the worst case scenario, as you can see here, leads to children being removed from their parents.
This appeal should have been allowed. McFarlane should have probed more as to why the parents may have chosen to stay out of the court room, if they did – which on the face of the facts available seems extraordinarily unlikely – after all, they wanted very much to share their evidence in court – and a call for evidence on both sides should have been made to come to a conclusion about the question over attendance, as there clearly wasn’t any offered at the time of the initial investigation by the judge.
A deeply disappointing result from a judge who is most likely going to become the next President of the Family Division.
Very many thanks to Michele Simmons for sharing this news item with us.
pennylilac said:
I had exactly the same claim made by a mum back in 2013 . BigMc ordered the transcript which detailed that mum left the courtroom.
Mum never changed her position on this. She said she was stopped from going in as it would be setting for her.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tummum said:
Interesting because I had the same happen in 2003 where I was asked to leave the Court room and a transcript was done in my absence, same Judge. I can’t say much here at this moment in time but what I would like to know is, how many more innocent families could be affected if this type of thing has been happening all this time :O xx
LikeLike
Dr. Manhattan. said:
“how many more innocent families could be affected if this type of thing has been happening all this time”
.
it has to run into 10s of thousands.
collusion in the family courts is as real as the Air we breath. even though it cant be seen.
LikeLike
tummum said:
What I can tell you is, the transcripts are not always re: barristers. I’m probably stating the obvious here but if this happened to me in 2003 and its still happening in 2017, well was I misled being told it had only happened with my family because this is how it’s now appearing to me. I cannot share the reasons here why I was told this but I was told it. Surely there needs to be some sort of public inquiry and for the ones effected to be invited to come forward as a matter of public interest xx
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Sir Nicholas Wall said in the Musa case [ http://www.gloriamusa.wordpress.com ] “Professionals don’t lie.”
However, we were told by the court usher that the jury had been hand picked!…
Why do oodles of websites ‘complain’ about corruption among police, lawyers and judges??? How many more need to be created and promoted for the penny to drop or for ‘them’ to disappear into early retirement???
Just by way of example:
http://bentlawyersandcops.com/
https://judgesbehavingbadlyblog.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/Corrupt-Judges-Exposed-102015723478713/
LikeLiked by 2 people
familycoalition said:
You forgot to mention the biggest liar of them all …
“Bruce Anthony Hyman is a British radio and TV producer. A barrister by profession, in 2007 Hyman was the first person in his profession in 800 years[1] to be incarcerated for attempting to pervert the course of justice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Hyman
LikeLiked by 1 person
familycoalition said:
Not sure Munby is planning on going….
“MUNBY: There’s been a lot of what I think in some quarters is called “fake news”. The effect that I have announce my retirement – I have not. It’s even being said on a well-known website that I’ve decided to retire in despair at the system, which is not so. This point has only emerged because some journalist with nothing better to do has rung up the judicial office and was told by the judicial office, “Sir James reaches the age of 70 in July 2018. He is required by statute to retire at his 70th birthday.” Which has become this very non-story. I have no particular ambitions, although my ability to remain silent from the side-lines, freed from the fetters of judicial responsibility I suspect may be limited. I suspect I am thought of, in too many quarters, as too plain speaking and the price you pay for speaking truth to power, which is what I’ve done, I suspect I wouldn’t be welcome in certain places. Not that I have any particular wish to go there.
The trouble with the House of Lords as an institution, if I can be flippant for a moment, is it’s the only place I can go to which makes me feel really young!”
https://fnf.org.uk/2-uncategorised/429-munby-transcript-2017
LikeLiked by 3 people
Natasha said:
Oh my, thank you. I shall have a look at that now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roger Crawford said:
This is indeed, a very disturbing case. If McFarlane is to become the next President of the Family Division he must be written to and the cases involving Barristers that you mention here, pointed out to him. I’ve no idea how to contact the man, but if pointed in the right direction I would certainly send him a letter. He should be made aware that many people out here are only too aware of corrupt lawyers and barristers and it should never be taken for granted by anyone that they ‘would not lie’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ian Josephs said:
The least this judge should have done was to listen to the evidence this couple wanted to produce to see if it was indeed relevant and significant enough to perhaps have changed the lower court’s decision.
Instead he chose to ignore both the parents and their evidence;
What a plonker ……….!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
“heard the judge make a remark in passing. That remark was,
“a barrister wouldn’t tell a lie.”
.
Well stone the Crows.
obviously this man should not be working in any HM court room with that kind of Naive mindset.not even as a Tea Boy.
and to think the public are led to believe judges are very intelligent skilled people with a honest Unbiased open mind.
Not in this case.
The courts and the Public is always going to be a US and Them situation until things drastically change.
But its good to see that slowly all the nasty little details of the family courts and their failings are coming to the surface.
LikeLiked by 2 people
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 2 people
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
The appearance as well as the existence of collusion?
Arguably, another case of hindering access to justice by self-serving Legal Aid Losers – who are a stain on the public family law profession. Their modus operandi usually features:
(a) excising any mention of requisite safe and good-enough parenting capacity – as evidence – from the court,
(b) suppressing their client’s voice and substituting it with their own voice instead,
(c) omitting (usually at the last minute) wider admissible evidence and testimony (proper scrutiny of) which would rectify errors in the narrowed factual matrix previously rubber-stamped,
(d) brazenly crossing over to bat for the other side at crucial moments at the hearing, and,
(e) wrongly intimating parental consent (which categorically is NOT full and informed consent) for their own decision-making.
All of this is contrary to parliamentary intentions over the working of the Children Act together with access to justice ie, ‘effective legal representation’ for parents and families hence proof that ‘good-enough parenting’ is being undermined by lack of good-enough representation. Perhaps it’s time for Parliament to legislate for this now?
LikeLiked by 3 people
HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE said:
Reblogged this on HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail holliegreigjusticee@gmail.com and commented:
HAHAHAHA has he met BH
LikeLike
Pingback: ha ha ha Lord Justice McFarlane, “A barrister wouldn’t tell a lie.” | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail holliegreigjusticee@gmail.com
S Loveridge said:
It was said by my sons Barrister I refused to give evidence in my sons criminal trial, I didn’t! She couldn’t afford for me to say anything to take her defence stagey off track- she wouldn’t call me.
My sons family lawyer persuaded us to go for an SGO, knowing that it would force me to stay y quiet about the injuries to my Granddaughter I witnessed being done by medical and nursing professionals and a birthing injury caused by the midwife. My faith after 38 years in the NHS, my faith in the police and justice system disappeared overnight. My disgust of the SS turned to hatred. To say a Barrister wouldn’t tell a lie is pathetic. I would also suggest a barrister also prevents the truth for their own agenda- especial if both family and criminal teams are ‘in cahoots’ the losing side needing the second trial to have the same outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
maureenjenner said:
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
I wish I could believe in the infallibility of barristers and the judiciary, but experience teaches caution on this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yvonne Stewart- Taylor said:
2003-2017 lying nurses, lying ‘experts’ cherry picked, Unqualified locum Dr’s ,medical negligence covered up by child protection , misdiagnosed NAI’s . false reports by SW’s with their own agenda, forced adoption agenda. Police collusion in foul play , media leaned on, Dr’s leaned on, Children buggered in care age 9 and 11, Judge colluding with all ‘so called’ professionals involved to save the reputation of blundering idiots , criminals in the system still wrecking innocent families. Child protection is the largest multi agency racket I have ever seen . I have first hand knowledge and can varify fraud using their own reports paperwork and legal correspondence between parties. Put out of meaningful employment as a ‘professional. because i whistle blew and raised the alarm. I am not remaining silent so now belong to those few who are loathed and hated for telling the truth, the people these criminals label vexatious. The system is only as good as the integrity of those who work in it. I have not seen many in the system with any honest integrity at all, and the few I have met over last 30 years have been persecuted out by the dishonest greedy jobs worth’s . I am a retired elected councilor 17 years served ex LA school governor. Tutor in adult ed, was a registered child minder who cared for and nurtured professionals babies and children, no child ever harmed in my care over 15 years, for the LA . Not worth listening to , with enough dirt on these pigs to sink a ship . There is a Mumby with connections to Lord Percy. Harry Potter brigade. I believe too many are sunken into the depths of depravity and in high positions of authority. its jobs for the boys. The boys don’t like to be exposed. Corporate criminal cabals are running the UK all the way to the top. This message is from the Grandmother of ” the one that got away” . All thanks to the American special care team and no thanks to anyone involved in the UK . Corruption is not a broad enough terminology for the miscreants who are running amok with our innocents.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
Yvonne,
are you in the UK or America ?
LikeLike
Melanie Buchanan said:
McFarlane did exactly the same to me. At appeal, after winning permission to appeal by Lady Gloster on the basis that I did not receive essential paperwork from my barrister (for which I had produced written proof at the permission stage), McFarlane accepted a simple letter from Barrister Duncan Maxwell Stuart stating to the contrary. McFarlane stated that because Maxwell- Stuart was a Barrister and his short letter was in the form of an afadavit that it overruled anything I could put forward and I should prove my case at the final hearing in other ways. I lost my legal aid and had three days to prepare as LIP. I lost the appeal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr. Manhattan. said:
McFarlane for President Anyone ?!
No i didnt thing so.
Lets hope Mr Munby stays put and does the right thing. Expose the corruption.
LikeLike
tummum said:
No thank you kind sir! xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Manhattan. said:
We seem to hear more and more about LAs opting for SGOs instead of Adoption. why is this. shurely there must be a Money Angle in this when we all know Adoption is a very lucrative Farmers market for babies.
LikeLike
michelle said:
I really need a judge to appeal a adoption order . The social services have hidden important evidence. Lied.bulled blackmailed when it’s been found out the fact it was a medical condition. So I need a judge .
LikeLike
Melanie Buchanan said:
This is not the first tine that McFarlane has said that a barrister wouldn’t lie in a serious family case. In a 2014 appeal a mother was relying on evidence that her barrister had failed her in the lower court by withholding evidence. McFarlane accepted the barrister’s short afadavit without hearing oral evidence from the mother. The mother’s appeal failed when McFarlane states that a barrister wouldn’t lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dr. Manhattan. said:
Could it be McFarlane has shares in Fostering and Adoption himself. that could possibly explain his attempt to have the Family courts become even more Secretive than before. i wonder what Munby thinks of this miserable excuse of a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Melanie Buchanan said:
The current President of the Family Division is Sir Andrew McFarlane (judge). Sir James Munby retired as president on 27th July 2018.
LikeLike
Dr. Manhattan. said:
No idea what you mean by that comment but for the record i already know those details about both Judges thank you.
LikeLike