As the family justice system faces renewed pressure to take a good look at its working methods, calls to open up family courts so that journalists can analyse evidence in these cases are coming from home, and abroad.
The President of the Family Division, James Munby, will be retiring in July, and whilst he has become increasingly vocal about the problems inside the Family Court during his term as president, he’s clearly chosen to use his last few months to push for more radical reform. We announced at the start of 2018 that Munby was our judge to watch this year, and he isn’t disappointing.
His recent comments about allowing journalists to have access to evidence in family cases, which he made at a seminar on13th March, have been followed up by another push to allow this access. Munby repeated his stance at a lecture he gave at Edinburgh University last week, telling attendees:
“A vital aspect of the ongoing transformation in the family justice system has to be reform of our still creaking rules about access to and reporting of family cases. Nothing short of radical reform will enable us to rid ourselves of the relentlessly repeated and inevitably damaging charge that we operate a system of private – some say secret – justice.”
Munby isn’t the only one who sees the pressing need to allow evidence to be accessed by the media. Over in Canada, where they appear to be ahead of the curve on this issue, a high profile child protection case is making waves, and not just because the details of the case are controversial.
In the case of JP v British Columbia, a Court of Appeal has granted journalists the right to review affidavits, written submissions, and other materials filed with the Court. The case itself shares many of the same desperate hallmarks of our own family cases in England. After a lengthy trial, Law Diva’s blog tells us that the British Columbia Supreme Court found the following:
“B.C.’s child protection authorities had negligently permitted a father to sexually abuse his children while the youngsters were in the custody of the Ministry. The Court found that the government’s failure to protect the children was “egregious, negligent, and a breach of duty” and government social workers showed a “reckless disregard to their obligation to protect children.””
The expert witness had also lied to the court during the trial. His testimony had played a significant role in the original finding that the father had sexually abused his children. Depressingly familiar too, was the way in which the court ignored due process to facilitate the expert witness’ point of view:
“The legal profession was shocked when the Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and determined that the so-called expert had defrauded the court. Their awe was not a criticism of the high court’s findings, but that the lower court has been so taken in by Dr. Reeves and the utter disregard for proper procedure.”
It’s time.
Many thanks to Dana for alerting us to the development in British Columbia.
Dr. Manhattan. said:
They say
“B.C.’s child protection authorities had negligently permitted a father to sexually abuse his children while the youngsters were in the custody of the Ministry”.
how on earth is that possible when shurely there would be contact workers present.
Also
“the so-called expert had defrauded the court”
Well thats no big surprize! they do it all the time in the UK and they get paid a fortune.
i know first hand that one Psychologist got paid over £4000 for only 3 days work. he also had the option of claiming extra for expenses!
LikeLiked by 2 people
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Appalling – another damning indictment of lemming logic and blatant abuse of process. So, how widespread is the scourge of institutional selective blindness? Really – who is watching the watchers?
LikeLike
Mike Cox said:
For a rather more coherent precis of the matter, try this link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a7e15dd6-4376-495f-b1cf-fcc8f979fee5
where you will learn that this is the usual case of an unrepresented father facing typically strategic allegations by the mother that he sexual abused his youngest child. To add to the mix, the Court relied upon a fake Expert Witness, produced by the mother, and compounded the injustice with various procedural irregularities.
“On appeal, B.G. [father] presented fresh evidence, accepted by the Court, that none of Ms. Reeves’s [“Expert Witness”] degrees came from legitimate academic institutions. Rather, they were obtained through unaccredited “diploma mills” which provide academic credentials for a fee without any requirements for study or exams. This included her PhD from Ashwood University, an entity that offered doctorate degrees for $349 plus free shipping, with delivery in approximately 15 days. B.G. also demonstrated that Reeves was not a licensed psychologist and had testified as an expert witness in only three reported cases (as opposed to the 52 she had claimed), one of which rejected her evidence as being unbelievable and not credible because she had never interviewed the child or the alleged perpetrator. Further, B.G. presented evidence on the CSAAS theory, which is based on discredited science and has been rejected by courts in Canada and the United States.
The findings of the lower court that:
“B.C.’s child protection authorities had negligently permitted a father to sexually abuse his children while the youngsters were in the custody of the Ministry. The Court found that the government’s failure to protect the children was “egregious, negligent, and a breach of duty” and government social workers showed a “reckless disregard to their obligation to protect children.”
were, in point of fact, expressly overturned by the Supreme Court as they arose from the unreliable evidence heard by the lower court.
It is notable that this egregious injustice was only overturned as a direct result of the public authorities appealing the subsequent claim for compensation by the mother.
LikeLiked by 2 people
maureenjenner said:
Working on the theory that ‘only the guilty need fear the truth’, why should any court of law fear disclosure of proceedings and outcome through or by the media?
It makes perfect sense to make public what goes on in the name of British Justice or any other country’s justice system. Too many innocent victims have been forced to suffer injustice in silence.
In this twenty-first century world, malevolent secrecy should have no place. It is high time it was scrapped in the name of justice within the courts. Truth is vital within any judicial system – too often it is sacrificed on the altars of mammon and power.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Hot Topic: Media Access To Family Court Evidence « Musings of a Penpusher
Ian Josephs said:
It amazes me that so many people have a blind spot over “open courts”” they say “.Let the journalists in” even though the reality is that few if any journalists would bother to go since they are forbidden to print verbatim proceedings and forbidden to name parents or children !
What is needed is “free speech” – the freedom for parents and others to name themselves and their grievances publicly !
LikeLiked by 3 people
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
Ian Josephs on March 27, 2018 at 12:59 pm
It amazes me that so many people have a blind spot over “open courts”” they say “.Let the journalists in” even though the reality is that few if any journalists would bother to go since they are forbidden to print verbatim proceedings and forbidden to name parents or children !
What is needed is “free speech” – the freedom for parents and others to name themselves and their grievances publicly !
Liked by you and 1 other person
LikeLike
Pingback: Hot Topic: Media Access To Family Court Evidence | | truthaholics – seachranaidhe1