9 ms·

How Britain's most secret court imprisoned a grandmother

123 points by koenigdavidmj 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
Each and every one of these cases is - assuming this is the whole truth - a total disgrace to whatever goes for justice. The degree of petty vengefulness on display is revolting.
- mootothemax 10y ago
  > assuming this is the whole truth Agreed - although something about how the author has written their summaries sets off all my "I'm very deliberately being given a one-sided version of this story" alarms.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. You can also find some righteous indignation from the social workers that caused some of these cases. In the past, nearly all the media has been critical of the court, including the Guardian
    - mootothemax 10y ago
      > So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a source which reliably summarises quite chunky texts is a job in itself. For example, here's one ruling linked from the Guardian which implies a very different story to that being told by the press: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html (a quite incredibly poorly-edited or mistyped or, I dunno, redacted ruling at that!) It doesn't take an age to read, but it does take a good amount of time to digest and understand - and even then you walk away with an incomplete picture. I'm still on the fence.
      - paulhart 10y ago
        Seems very clear to me - the Court has ordered a stop to a pattern of behaviour, the person so ordered has not stopped, and so the court is "turning up the volume" by using the powers it has available to it. Regardless of what you may think of the duration of the sentence (and I'll assume that it's within the bounds of both legality and jurisprudence for the circumstances), the Judge takes into account that the ordered person probably didn't believe that the Court would follow through on things.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Or may have believed it but chose to stand by their family member in a time of need.
    - triplesec 10y ago
      This is indeed the trouble here. Because the family courts are (for some very good reasons, like protection of children) held _in camera_, (which counterintuitively for english speakers means no cameras, nor direct reporting allowed), we don't have many details. This is of course something which we might be able to fix better with newer human-information technology approaches, or more oprn meta-processes regarding feedback loops for justice. But, it's a torny problem. We used to trust the authorities. Often, they mean well, but they can be corrupted by specific interests in specific cases (rich people networks), or make grave errors due to institutional cultural corruption.
      - sbmassey 10y ago
        How is an absence of reporting meant to protect children?
        Veen 10y ago
        Because sometimes reporting can be harmful to children. Think about the sort of cases with abusive parents and relatives. It does no one any good for the details of those cases to be splashed over front page of the Sun.
        sbmassey 10y ago
        Wouldn't measures like just keeping the names and images of the people involved out of the press be sufficient?
        DanBC 10y ago
        There's reform happening at courts of protection and the family division to publish more, with appropriate anonymisation. Remember that these courts deal with really vulnerable people. Have a read of some of these: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html
      - Veen 10y ago
        Not really relevant here, but "in camera" means literally in a room or chamber, and hence private. The modern word "camera" derives from the same word: early "cameras" like the camera obscura were literally rooms. Dark room in the case of camera obscura, which is also now a photography term with a different meaning.
- DanBC 10y ago
  It's not the whole truth, it's blatant bollocks and it's really disappointing to see many on HN fail to do even simple debunking. http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the... http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/
Cozumel 10y ago
This is one instance where 'terrifying' actually fits, but the real question is what can a regular citizen actually do about all this?
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Investigate further because the Telegraph is probably only giving you half the story.
  - TillE 10y ago
    Unless you have specific evidence, accusations like this are just noise. The Telegraph is a respected paper, and its leanings are Conservative (ie, supportive of the current government).
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      s/Telegraph/media in general/, then. It's quite possible to be factual whilst being misleading, and that's not an "accusation", it's the general way of the world. I firmly believe large media organizations can not be trusted to remain anything resembling objective.
    - sgt101 10y ago
      These cases concern the most personal of data and while allegations and evidence may be pertinent to (for example) allowing a child to continue to live with a parent they may not be sufficient to obtain a conviction or even warrant a prosecution. In this situation the court has to determine if justice is served by enabling a man or woman to continue as a parent of whether the safety of the child is an overriding consideration. In the second case the production of specific evidence in the public domain is libellous, and yet the child may be removed from the parent. Subsequently the defiance of the courts orders can be contempt, and yet the original orders appear unjust to those who have no knowledge of the case. The problem is that the above may not be true, it could be simply that this is a front to enable the detention of people who are found to be inconvenient.
    - 10y ago
crystalmeph 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Protection This court's jurisdiction seems to set it up in direct conflict with family members who have power of attorney to care for ailing relatives, as it appears that the court has the power to decide what is in the ailing person's best interest. Clearly, you do need a court system to prevent actual abuse of people with diminished capacity, but unless actual harm is being done, why does the court, or any government agency, need to decide what is the "best" care for anybody?
- DanBC 10y ago
  Imagine a mother with a child. She gets dementia and needs to go in a care home. The child can't afford to pay for this, the mother doesn't have much in savings, but does own a house. The child wants to sell the house to pay for the care home. Everybody agrees that this is a good outcome for the mother, and that it probably leaves the child a bit worse off. In this simple case the child will apply to the court to get power of attorney (or similar) so that they have the legal powers to sell someone else's home. > but unless actual harm is being done, why does the court, or any government agency, need to decide what is the "best" care for anybody? In most cases they don't get involved, or their involvement is a straightforward acceptance of the suggested actions.
mobiuscog 10y ago
"a judge, sitting in public, dictated the letter to be signed by the woman" This, cannot be called justice or law, in any non-corrupt country.
proaralyst 10y ago
Why is our most secret court for _family_ matters of all things? I thought this was going to relate to national security in some form.
alexro 10y ago
Should UK be viewed as the most unfriendly country to the aged people? I often come across stories that give that impression - care homes, courts being the most prominent bad actors
m_mueller 10y ago
This reads more like a storyline from V for Vendetta or Black Mirror. A tourist was forced to undergo a cesarian in order to take away her child? Am I reading this correctly?!
- DanBC 10y ago
  The article is full of distortions. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B14.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B14.html http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the...
barrkel 10y ago
When the state takes such invasive action, it needs to pass a very high bar. Even with the best intentions, state institutions rarely treat people under their care better than relatives and close friends. You can see the other side of this, of course: each decision derives from laws and judgements that were made or justified on the basis of wrongdoings. It follows the same pattern as anti-drug legislation. Drugs do damage, so let's outlaw the drug. But the state's attempt to outlaw the drug means using its monopoly on violence, and that causes more total harm than the original problem. Laws against abusive situations in families or preventing vulnerable people being scammed out of their money need to take into account the possibility that the state will make things worse.
libeclipse 10y ago
Stories like this reinforce my belief that we should be a more libertarian society. Why should the governments or courts have such a massive say in such intimate things.
digi_owl 10y ago
Dunno how well maintained the wikipedia article on him is, but he seems to be quite the character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker Also, i am at a loss of finding his full column on the Italian tourist story.
- pmiller2 10y ago
  > Also, i am at a loss of finding his full column on the Italian tourist story. Here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485281/Baby-forcibly-removed-by-caesarean-and-taken-into-care.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherboo...
- jaclaz 10y ago
  Search for "Alessandra Pacchieri", the story has been published on most UK newspapers, including: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesarean-adoption-bipolar-woman-violence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesar... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-baby-adopted-forced-caesarean-case-uk https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-ba... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10503079/Alessandra-Pacchieri-Pitiful-tale-of-a-mother-and-her-lost-child.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1050307...
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    So a much less clear cut (ugh, sorry) case than it first appeared...
triplesec 10y ago
Be careful of the source here. Booker is variously a climate change denier and professional contrarian. He's very smart, but one of those iconoclasts who does get on a high horse. In this case it's worth knowing that he has been crusading against family and other civil court secrecy and rulings for years. ANd it's a worthy cause, but he's nt the world's most level headed journalist: hes sceptical of very reasonable judgements, like 99% of scientists re climate, for example. In this case, some of his cases (and there are many articles, and they are worth a read) appear to be for good reason, and rthere will be some substance to some of them; but we don't know - which is partly why he rails against them. However, it is clear that he doesn't bring all the facts to our attention (like why the authorities may have had courts rule against unfit, manipulative and dangerous family members). Nonetheless, there is likely significant merit in at least some of his qualms. Dig deeper using other sources, before coming to premature judgements. These stories are designed, DailyFail-style, to tug at your heartstrings. It's also worth knowing that The Daily Telegraph has always been the UK Rightwing broadsheet, but has since its change of ownership in recent years, turned more to Daily Mail-like reporting and sensationalism. IT has also taken a hard turn to the neoliberal Far-Right (think Brexit), and so you should take its stories with as much caution as perhaps the 'Washington Times', and worse than Murdoch's WSJ. It's not yet as bad as Beitbart, as it still advertises to octogenarian Colonels in Tunbridge Wells, but that may change.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Booker is reporting the attempts by Lord Justice Munby, who should be in a position to know, to correct the selection of miscarriages of justice in the 11 years the Court has existed. It's bordering on systemically broken. The whole way the court was set up was a mess. The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court, which was also set up shoddily. Labour almost immediately lost an outrageous ECR case and had to amend the the Act in 07 or 08. I think there might be another going through the ECR. There have been endless complaints about it's operation, with reports going back years, in all political flavours of the media. So I for one welcome what the Telegraph, Christopher Booker and the judge are doing. The Telegraph is not my usual choice of view or politics. All the cases except the most recent have been extensively reported. Were it on climate change or one of the other Torygraph axes being ground, I'd agree with your critique, I don't think it really fits here.
megous 10y ago
So, why does this need to be so secret? Also, in what sense is it secret? Is there some punishment, the affected grandmother is facing for talking to the media about the case?
- DanBC 10y ago
  In the past we wanted to protect children and people who lack capacity, and part of that was protecting their privacy. So the courts had fierce reporting restrictions. Sir James Munby, current president of the Courts of Protection and the Family Division says that some degree of privacy is still needed, but that most case rulings should be public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/annex-b-draft-transparency-in-family-courts.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/pfd-update-process-of-reform.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... > Also, in what sense is it secret? Is there some punishment, the affected grandmother is facing for talking to the media about the case? In the past the case was held in a closed court. The press could not report it. Public weren't admitted to the court. And the rulings were not published. That's changed a bit. The rulings are anonymised and mostly published now. I think she can talk to the press, so long as she does not identify the child. The submitted article severely distorts some elements of this case. Soundwave106 provided a really useful link about this case: http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/
ghufran_syed 10y ago
Without wishing to comment on the substance of the claims, I think it's both sexist and ageist to imply in the headline of the article that a "grandmother" must be so weak or ineffective that she could not commit a crime deserving imprisonment.
- mona_simpson 10y ago
  <s>You're right ! There are all sorts of examples of criminal grandmas - here's one I found http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Mona_Simpson</s> http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Mona_Simpson</s> The point here is that the substance of the claims is not in dispute. It is well documented and acknowledged by the court. There are a myriad of these cases, such as where a father (Gary Johnson) was jailed for wishing happy birthday to his grown up son (http://www.essexlive.news/sons-slam-jailing-father-facebook-greeting/story-19204277-detail/story.html http://www.essexlive.news/sons-slam-jailing-father-facebook-...). There are multiple problems with UK secret courts and their draconian and excessive powers being wielded in venomous ways. The UK is not a safe place to have a dispute with petty public officials as they resort to these powers and others to attack those who fail to comply with 'right-think' or question authority.
- dilap 10y ago
  Sexism and ageism appear to be the least of this woman's problems at this moment. Perspective, please?
  - golergka 10y ago
    Nobody's saying that those are _her_ problems.
nathan_long 10y ago
"a grandmother" - why is this relevant? It's possible for a female person to both 1) reproduce and 2) be a criminal.
- stuaxo 10y ago
  It's the Telegraph, so to be expected. Still, the story is very interesting.
Silhouette 10y ago
Of all the cases of excessive government intervention I've read about in recent years, the ones about families are almost always the most distressing. Obviously there are cases that really do involve serious abuse of someone who is not capable of protecting themselves, and intervention may be justified. However, the state in many of our western countries has an awful record of providing real, genuine care for those at a disadvantage, and it has an awful record of interfering without reasonable cause. I therefore believe the law should require an unusually high standard of evidence before permitting such actions. Mere reasonable suspicion that all is not perfect in the subjective view of some official is nowhere close to sufficient to justify things like removing a child from a parent's care or separating an elderly married couple who have lived happily together for 60 years, in my not so humble opinion, yet I have read far too many stories that are disturbingly close to that in recent times. At least it is reassuring that a very senior judge in the UK does seem to have recognised the problem and to be trying to do something about it.
- DanBC 10y ago
  The Family Courts have seen a near doubling of cases within the past ten years. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-... 2005-6: 6613 cases 2014-15: 11159 cases > Mere reasonable suspicion that all is not perfect in the subjective view of some official is nowhere close to sufficient to justify things like removing a child from a parent's care or separating an elderly married couple who have lived happily together for 60 years, in my not so humble opinion, yet I have read far too many stories that are disturbingly close to that in recent times. Here's what Munby says: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-14-care-cases.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-... > Given the realities, we must continue to look for new, innovative and better ways of handling these cases, while never departing from the fundamentals, namely that: > Care cases, with their potential for life‐long separation between children and their parents, are of unique gravity and importance > It is for the local authority to establish its case > Common‐law principles of fairness and justice demand, as do Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, a process in which both the parents and the child can fully participate with the assistance of representation by skilled and experienced lawyers As an example of how seriously the Family courts take their duty of involving children, here's one decision written so that the children can understand most of it: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html
danbmil99 10y ago
TL;DR: Britain has no Bill of Rights
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Where do you think the American one got its name from? It wasn't original. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
DanBC 10y ago
Here's the ruling for the case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/42.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/42.html > The maximum sentence is one of two years' imprisonment. The options are limited. Mrs Kirk has little income and no assets. I have reluctantly concluded that there now being no other way, it seems to me, of enforcing the court order; that I am left with no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment, however much I have made it perfectly clear that I do not wish to do so. > Taking all those factors into account and having regard to the sentencing authorities, I shall pass a sentence of six months' imprisonment. However, I shall suspend the warrant for a period of seven days only to give Mrs Kirk one last chance to comply; I urge her to do so. If she changes her mind and signs the authority within seven days, the warrant will not be executed and I shall suspend the sentence for a period of 12 months. If she does not she will go to prison. If Mrs Kirk subsequently complies with the order, the matter should be immediately restored on an application to purge her contempt. What happens next is in Mrs Kirk's hands.

123 points by koenigdavidmj 10y ago

Each and every one of these cases is - assuming this is the whole truth - a total disgrace to whatever goes for justice. The degree of petty vengefulness on display is revolting.

mootothemax 10y ago
> assuming this is the whole truth Agreed - although something about how the author has written their summaries sets off all my "I'm very deliberately being given a one-sided version of this story" alarms.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. You can also find some righteous indignation from the social workers that caused some of these cases. In the past, nearly all the media has been critical of the court, including the Guardian
  - mootothemax 10y ago
    > So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a source which reliably summarises quite chunky texts is a job in itself. For example, here's one ruling linked from the Guardian which implies a very different story to that being told by the press: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html (a quite incredibly poorly-edited or mistyped or, I dunno, redacted ruling at that!) It doesn't take an age to read, but it does take a good amount of time to digest and understand - and even then you walk away with an incomplete picture. I'm still on the fence.
    - paulhart 10y ago
      Seems very clear to me - the Court has ordered a stop to a pattern of behaviour, the person so ordered has not stopped, and so the court is "turning up the volume" by using the powers it has available to it. Regardless of what you may think of the duration of the sentence (and I'll assume that it's within the bounds of both legality and jurisprudence for the circumstances), the Judge takes into account that the ordered person probably didn't believe that the Court would follow through on things.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Or may have believed it but chose to stand by their family member in a time of need.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    This is indeed the trouble here. Because the family courts are (for some very good reasons, like protection of children) held _in camera_, (which counterintuitively for english speakers means no cameras, nor direct reporting allowed), we don't have many details. This is of course something which we might be able to fix better with newer human-information technology approaches, or more oprn meta-processes regarding feedback loops for justice. But, it's a torny problem. We used to trust the authorities. Often, they mean well, but they can be corrupted by specific interests in specific cases (rich people networks), or make grave errors due to institutional cultural corruption.
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      How is an absence of reporting meant to protect children?
      - Veen 10y ago
        Because sometimes reporting can be harmful to children. Think about the sort of cases with abusive parents and relatives. It does no one any good for the details of those cases to be splashed over front page of the Sun.
        sbmassey 10y ago
        Wouldn't measures like just keeping the names and images of the people involved out of the press be sufficient?
        DanBC 10y ago
        There's reform happening at courts of protection and the family division to publish more, with appropriate anonymisation. Remember that these courts deal with really vulnerable people. Have a read of some of these: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html
    - Veen 10y ago
      Not really relevant here, but "in camera" means literally in a room or chamber, and hence private. The modern word "camera" derives from the same word: early "cameras" like the camera obscura were literally rooms. Dark room in the case of camera obscura, which is also now a photography term with a different meaning.
DanBC 10y ago
It's not the whole truth, it's blatant bollocks and it's really disappointing to see many on HN fail to do even simple debunking. http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the... http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/

Cozumel 10y ago

This is one instance where 'terrifying' actually fits, but the real question is what can a regular citizen actually do about all this?

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
Investigate further because the Telegraph is probably only giving you half the story.
- TillE 10y ago
  Unless you have specific evidence, accusations like this are just noise. The Telegraph is a respected paper, and its leanings are Conservative (ie, supportive of the current government).
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    s/Telegraph/media in general/, then. It's quite possible to be factual whilst being misleading, and that's not an "accusation", it's the general way of the world. I firmly believe large media organizations can not be trusted to remain anything resembling objective.
  - sgt101 10y ago
    These cases concern the most personal of data and while allegations and evidence may be pertinent to (for example) allowing a child to continue to live with a parent they may not be sufficient to obtain a conviction or even warrant a prosecution. In this situation the court has to determine if justice is served by enabling a man or woman to continue as a parent of whether the safety of the child is an overriding consideration. In the second case the production of specific evidence in the public domain is libellous, and yet the child may be removed from the parent. Subsequently the defiance of the courts orders can be contempt, and yet the original orders appear unjust to those who have no knowledge of the case. The problem is that the above may not be true, it could be simply that this is a front to enable the detention of people who are found to be inconvenient.
  - 10y ago

crystalmeph 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Protection This court's jurisdiction seems to set it up in direct conflict with family members who have power of attorney to care for ailing relatives, as it appears that the court has the power to decide what is in the ailing person's best interest. Clearly, you do need a court system to prevent actual abuse of people with diminished capacity, but unless actual harm is being done, why does the court, or any government agency, need to decide what is the "best" care for anybody?

DanBC 10y ago
Imagine a mother with a child. She gets dementia and needs to go in a care home. The child can't afford to pay for this, the mother doesn't have much in savings, but does own a house. The child wants to sell the house to pay for the care home. Everybody agrees that this is a good outcome for the mother, and that it probably leaves the child a bit worse off. In this simple case the child will apply to the court to get power of attorney (or similar) so that they have the legal powers to sell someone else's home. > but unless actual harm is being done, why does the court, or any government agency, need to decide what is the "best" care for anybody? In most cases they don't get involved, or their involvement is a straightforward acceptance of the suggested actions.

mobiuscog 10y ago

"a judge, sitting in public, dictated the letter to be signed by the woman" This, cannot be called justice or law, in any non-corrupt country.

proaralyst 10y ago

Why is our most secret court for _family_ matters of all things? I thought this was going to relate to national security in some form.

alexro 10y ago

Should UK be viewed as the most unfriendly country to the aged people? I often come across stories that give that impression - care homes, courts being the most prominent bad actors

m_mueller 10y ago

This reads more like a storyline from V for Vendetta or Black Mirror. A tourist was forced to undergo a cesarian in order to take away her child? Am I reading this correctly?!

DanBC 10y ago
The article is full of distortions. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B14.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2013/B14.html http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the...

barrkel 10y ago

When the state takes such invasive action, it needs to pass a very high bar. Even with the best intentions, state institutions rarely treat people under their care better than relatives and close friends. You can see the other side of this, of course: each decision derives from laws and judgements that were made or justified on the basis of wrongdoings. It follows the same pattern as anti-drug legislation. Drugs do damage, so let's outlaw the drug. But the state's attempt to outlaw the drug means using its monopoly on violence, and that causes more total harm than the original problem. Laws against abusive situations in families or preventing vulnerable people being scammed out of their money need to take into account the possibility that the state will make things worse.

libeclipse 10y ago

Stories like this reinforce my belief that we should be a more libertarian society. Why should the governments or courts have such a massive say in such intimate things.

digi_owl 10y ago

Dunno how well maintained the wikipedia article on him is, but he seems to be quite the character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker Also, i am at a loss of finding his full column on the Italian tourist story.

pmiller2 10y ago
> Also, i am at a loss of finding his full column on the Italian tourist story. Here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485281/Baby-forcibly-removed-by-caesarean-and-taken-into-care.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherboo...
jaclaz 10y ago
Search for "Alessandra Pacchieri", the story has been published on most UK newspapers, including: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesarean-adoption-bipolar-woman-violence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesar... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-baby-adopted-forced-caesarean-case-uk https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-ba... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10503079/Alessandra-Pacchieri-Pitiful-tale-of-a-mother-and-her-lost-child.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1050307...
- digi_owl 10y ago
  So a much less clear cut (ugh, sorry) case than it first appeared...

triplesec 10y ago

Be careful of the source here. Booker is variously a climate change denier and professional contrarian. He's very smart, but one of those iconoclasts who does get on a high horse. In this case it's worth knowing that he has been crusading against family and other civil court secrecy and rulings for years. ANd it's a worthy cause, but he's nt the world's most level headed journalist: hes sceptical of very reasonable judgements, like 99% of scientists re climate, for example. In this case, some of his cases (and there are many articles, and they are worth a read) appear to be for good reason, and rthere will be some substance to some of them; but we don't know - which is partly why he rails against them. However, it is clear that he doesn't bring all the facts to our attention (like why the authorities may have had courts rule against unfit, manipulative and dangerous family members). Nonetheless, there is likely significant merit in at least some of his qualms. Dig deeper using other sources, before coming to premature judgements. These stories are designed, DailyFail-style, to tug at your heartstrings. It's also worth knowing that The Daily Telegraph has always been the UK Rightwing broadsheet, but has since its change of ownership in recent years, turned more to Daily Mail-like reporting and sensationalism. IT has also taken a hard turn to the neoliberal Far-Right (think Brexit), and so you should take its stories with as much caution as perhaps the 'Washington Times', and worse than Murdoch's WSJ. It's not yet as bad as Beitbart, as it still advertises to octogenarian Colonels in Tunbridge Wells, but that may change.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
Booker is reporting the attempts by Lord Justice Munby, who should be in a position to know, to correct the selection of miscarriages of justice in the 11 years the Court has existed. It's bordering on systemically broken. The whole way the court was set up was a mess. The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court, which was also set up shoddily. Labour almost immediately lost an outrageous ECR case and had to amend the the Act in 07 or 08. I think there might be another going through the ECR. There have been endless complaints about it's operation, with reports going back years, in all political flavours of the media. So I for one welcome what the Telegraph, Christopher Booker and the judge are doing. The Telegraph is not my usual choice of view or politics. All the cases except the most recent have been extensively reported. Were it on climate change or one of the other Torygraph axes being ground, I'd agree with your critique, I don't think it really fits here.

megous 10y ago

So, why does this need to be so secret? Also, in what sense is it secret? Is there some punishment, the affected grandmother is facing for talking to the media about the case?

DanBC 10y ago
In the past we wanted to protect children and people who lack capacity, and part of that was protecting their privacy. So the courts had fierce reporting restrictions. Sir James Munby, current president of the Courts of Protection and the Family Division says that some degree of privacy is still needed, but that most case rulings should be public. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/annex-b-draft-transparency-in-family-courts.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/pfd-update-process-of-reform.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document... > Also, in what sense is it secret? Is there some punishment, the affected grandmother is facing for talking to the media about the case? In the past the case was held in a closed court. The press could not report it. Public weren't admitted to the court. And the rulings were not published. That's changed a bit. The rulings are anonymised and mostly published now. I think she can talk to the press, so long as she does not identify the child. The submitted article severely distorts some elements of this case. Soundwave106 provided a really useful link about this case: http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/

ghufran_syed 10y ago

Without wishing to comment on the substance of the claims, I think it's both sexist and ageist to imply in the headline of the article that a "grandmother" must be so weak or ineffective that she could not commit a crime deserving imprisonment.

mona_simpson 10y ago
<s>You're right ! There are all sorts of examples of criminal grandmas - here's one I found http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Mona_Simpson</s> http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Mona_Simpson</s> The point here is that the substance of the claims is not in dispute. It is well documented and acknowledged by the court. There are a myriad of these cases, such as where a father (Gary Johnson) was jailed for wishing happy birthday to his grown up son (http://www.essexlive.news/sons-slam-jailing-father-facebook-greeting/story-19204277-detail/story.html http://www.essexlive.news/sons-slam-jailing-father-facebook-...). There are multiple problems with UK secret courts and their draconian and excessive powers being wielded in venomous ways. The UK is not a safe place to have a dispute with petty public officials as they resort to these powers and others to attack those who fail to comply with 'right-think' or question authority.
dilap 10y ago
Sexism and ageism appear to be the least of this woman's problems at this moment. Perspective, please?
- golergka 10y ago
  Nobody's saying that those are _her_ problems.

nathan_long 10y ago

"a grandmother" - why is this relevant? It's possible for a female person to both 1) reproduce and 2) be a criminal.

stuaxo 10y ago
It's the Telegraph, so to be expected. Still, the story is very interesting.

Silhouette 10y ago

Of all the cases of excessive government intervention I've read about in recent years, the ones about families are almost always the most distressing. Obviously there are cases that really do involve serious abuse of someone who is not capable of protecting themselves, and intervention may be justified. However, the state in many of our western countries has an awful record of providing real, genuine care for those at a disadvantage, and it has an awful record of interfering without reasonable cause. I therefore believe the law should require an unusually high standard of evidence before permitting such actions. Mere reasonable suspicion that all is not perfect in the subjective view of some official is nowhere close to sufficient to justify things like removing a child from a parent's care or separating an elderly married couple who have lived happily together for 60 years, in my not so humble opinion, yet I have read far too many stories that are disturbingly close to that in recent times. At least it is reassuring that a very senior judge in the UK does seem to have recognised the problem and to be trying to do something about it.

DanBC 10y ago
The Family Courts have seen a near doubling of cases within the past ten years. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-... 2005-6: 6613 cases 2014-15: 11159 cases > Mere reasonable suspicion that all is not perfect in the subjective view of some official is nowhere close to sufficient to justify things like removing a child from a parent's care or separating an elderly married couple who have lived happily together for 60 years, in my not so humble opinion, yet I have read far too many stories that are disturbingly close to that in recent times. Here's what Munby says: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-14-care-cases.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-... > Given the realities, we must continue to look for new, innovative and better ways of handling these cases, while never departing from the fundamentals, namely that: > Care cases, with their potential for life‐long separation between children and their parents, are of unique gravity and importance > It is for the local authority to establish its case > Common‐law principles of fairness and justice demand, as do Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, a process in which both the parents and the child can fully participate with the assistance of representation by skilled and experienced lawyers As an example of how seriously the Family courts take their duty of involving children, here's one decision written so that the children can understand most of it: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html

danbmil99 10y ago

TL;DR: Britain has no Bill of Rights

dragonwriter 10y ago
Where do you think the American one got its name from? It wasn't original. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 10y ago

Here's the ruling for the case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/42.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/42.html > The maximum sentence is one of two years' imprisonment. The options are limited. Mrs Kirk has little income and no assets. I have reluctantly concluded that there now being no other way, it seems to me, of enforcing the court order; that I am left with no alternative but to pass a sentence of imprisonment, however much I have made it perfectly clear that I do not wish to do so. > Taking all those factors into account and having regard to the sentencing authorities, I shall pass a sentence of six months' imprisonment. However, I shall suspend the warrant for a period of seven days only to give Mrs Kirk one last chance to comply; I urge her to do so. If she changes her mind and signs the authority within seven days, the warrant will not be executed and I shall suspend the sentence for a period of 12 months. If she does not she will go to prison. If Mrs Kirk subsequently complies with the order, the matter should be immediately restored on an application to purge her contempt. What happens next is in Mrs Kirk's hands.