Secret Evidence
On August 9th 2006, Judge F presided over a summons hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ), the UK High Court. Being a family court, the hearing was in secret. Blissfully unaware of the existence of this hearing, I was neither present nor represented.
The barrister was experienced in these Hague Convention on Child Abduction cases. Although he knew even the key allegation statement was false and the case had no merit -- he surely knew it was a blatant hoax -- he presented the case to the judge. He also knew the granting of the summons would provide an opportunity for the UK legal profession to correct an earlier UK judicial mistake, one that the court documents clearly displayed.
For some reason, the barrister handed up a document to Judge F that wasn't in the court bundle. During the judge's summing up, it was clear the contents of that document dominated her thoughts. The summons was granted. And so began the nightmare that led to my daughter being traded as payment for the judicial mistake -- even though they knew "removing a parent from a child was the ultimate penalty a State can do to a citizen," they still did it.
In 2007, I initiated a number of investigations with a host of legal regulatory bodies against solicitors, barristers and judges. A complaint against a firm of solicitors was not upheld in part due to a letter that I'd never seen before. When I called the investigator, she gave the impression it had been used at the summons hearing. I wrote to Judge F asking for this missing letter, but its existence was not disclosed.
My complaints against the judges were dismissed but I persisted and appealed to the Judicial Ombudsman. Months later, they finally asked the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to do an investigation. Judge F was one of those to be investigated, as was Judge M who presided over the subsequent hearing at the RCJ. Later in the year, I requested a transcript of the summons hearing from the RCJ. It duly arrived, via a transcription firm, without a hitch. That transcript exposed the existence of the secret document. I wrote to Judge F asking for it to be handed over. The reply was not what I expected: "We do not have a copy of the 'summary of background/chronology' that was handed up in court on 9th August. This is not a document that we would have kept".
As the three main documents in the official court bundle were in effect all 'summary of background/chronology', why did the barrister feel he needed to hand up a fourth and why was this one not kept when such documents evidently were? And why did the judge not disclose the existence of the document when I explicitly asked a few months earlier?
There are rules that govern the use of secret evidence in courts and they apply when national security is a concern. As this book extract clearly shows, the issue of open (not secret) evidence is fundamental to the rule of law (due process in US) -- Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is applicable to both civil and criminal cases:
I wrote to the OJC explaining Judge F had used secret evidence in court and had not disclosed it when asked. I then requested the transcript of Judge M's hearing at the RCJ because I realised they were so damning. Obviously I wasn't alone in that assessment because the hearing records were destroyed.
Ultimately, the OJC didn't uphold my complaint against the judges. However, one of the investigators did contact Scotland Yard's Special Crime Directorate on my behalf. The SCD6 police officer lied as to why they wouldn't investigate.
Not a single person has been punished let alone charged in connection with my daughter's illegal removal from the UK. The entire matter has been comprehensively covered up; a total media block is still in place.
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
The barrister was experienced in these Hague Convention on Child Abduction cases. Although he knew even the key allegation statement was false and the case had no merit -- he surely knew it was a blatant hoax -- he presented the case to the judge. He also knew the granting of the summons would provide an opportunity for the UK legal profession to correct an earlier UK judicial mistake, one that the court documents clearly displayed.
For some reason, the barrister handed up a document to Judge F that wasn't in the court bundle. During the judge's summing up, it was clear the contents of that document dominated her thoughts. The summons was granted. And so began the nightmare that led to my daughter being traded as payment for the judicial mistake -- even though they knew "removing a parent from a child was the ultimate penalty a State can do to a citizen," they still did it.
In 2007, I initiated a number of investigations with a host of legal regulatory bodies against solicitors, barristers and judges. A complaint against a firm of solicitors was not upheld in part due to a letter that I'd never seen before. When I called the investigator, she gave the impression it had been used at the summons hearing. I wrote to Judge F asking for this missing letter, but its existence was not disclosed.
My complaints against the judges were dismissed but I persisted and appealed to the Judicial Ombudsman. Months later, they finally asked the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to do an investigation. Judge F was one of those to be investigated, as was Judge M who presided over the subsequent hearing at the RCJ. Later in the year, I requested a transcript of the summons hearing from the RCJ. It duly arrived, via a transcription firm, without a hitch. That transcript exposed the existence of the secret document. I wrote to Judge F asking for it to be handed over. The reply was not what I expected: "We do not have a copy of the 'summary of background/chronology' that was handed up in court on 9th August. This is not a document that we would have kept".
As the three main documents in the official court bundle were in effect all 'summary of background/chronology', why did the barrister feel he needed to hand up a fourth and why was this one not kept when such documents evidently were? And why did the judge not disclose the existence of the document when I explicitly asked a few months earlier?
There are rules that govern the use of secret evidence in courts and they apply when national security is a concern. As this book extract clearly shows, the issue of open (not secret) evidence is fundamental to the rule of law (due process in US) -- Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is applicable to both civil and criminal cases:
On Tuesday 4 May [2010], the British Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that allowed the British government to use secret evidence to defend itself in a civil law case. This became a major story in the Press and the high court judges' strong remarks were well publicised. The Court of Appeal said it would “take a stand” against secrecy that would undermine the “most fundamental principles of common law.” In a strongly-worded ruling, the Master of the Rolls (second most senior judge), Lord Neuberger, said:
In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it.
I wrote to the OJC explaining Judge F had used secret evidence in court and had not disclosed it when asked. I then requested the transcript of Judge M's hearing at the RCJ because I realised they were so damning. Obviously I wasn't alone in that assessment because the hearing records were destroyed.
Ultimately, the OJC didn't uphold my complaint against the judges. However, one of the investigators did contact Scotland Yard's Special Crime Directorate on my behalf. The SCD6 police officer lied as to why they wouldn't investigate.
Not a single person has been punished let alone charged in connection with my daughter's illegal removal from the UK. The entire matter has been comprehensively covered up; a total media block is still in place.
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
No comments have been added yet.
