President of Family Division’s press release on paedophile allegations case

25 August 2011 by

With thanks to the Judicial Press Office, below is the full press release from the President of the Family Division in a case involving a “super injunction”, John Hemming MP, false allegations of pedophilia and some poor press reporting.

I will blog about this once the full rulings are released, but in the meantime see Lucy Reed: Bared Teeth – Grrrrr! | Pink Tape; Inforrm; News: Hemming MP’s “super injunction victim” named as sex abuse fabricator « Inforrm’s Blog, and the Fighting Monsters blog: Hemming and Haigh – The Journey of an Injunction.

Press Release from the president of the Family Division: Re X  (a child)

I am today giving two judgments, both of which will be in open court.

The first judgment will put into the public domain matters which, in care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 Parliament has decided are normally confidential to the court and to the parties. The second will explain why I have found a woman called Elizabeth Watson in contempt of court. After giving the second judgment. I will adjourn to hear any mitigation Ms Watson may wish to put forward as to why I should not send her to prison.

Why am I giving the first judgment? The reason is simple. Two judges have now heard different aspects of this case at great length. The first judge found that allegations of sexual abuse made against the father of a young child were not just untrue, but manufactured by the child’s mother who then caused her daughter to repeat them.  The mother, who was represented by counsel at that hearing,  did not seek to appeal against the judge’s decision that the father had not sexually abused his daughter, and that she had manufactured the “evidence”.

Because the mother: (1) was wholly incapable of fostering a relationship between her daughter and the child’s father; (2) refused to accept the judge’s findings; and (3) continued to assert that the father was a paedophile, a second judge found that her mother had caused the child significant harm and  made a care order in favour of the Doncaster Metropolitan City council. The care plan was for the child to move from her paternal grandmother to her father’s care. That occurred. And there she remains. The mother did not seek to appeal against this order either.

The child’s mother is wholly unable to accept the court’s verdict, and with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in breach of court orders put into the public domain via Email and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations abut the father and others.  She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile, and – without a scintilla of evidence – has attacked the good faith of all the professionals who have had any contact with the case.

I have read all the papers in the case carefully. The father of the child, who may be named, is not a paedophile and he has notsexually abused his daughter.  Two judges have so found, and their decisions stand. That is how our system of law operates.

In these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that, with one major exception,  I should put the two previous judgments and a document prepared by the local authority and the guardian into the public domain, and that I should also give a public judgment in which I explain, having read all the papers  in the case, why I have reached the same conclusion as the two previous judges

The exception will remain the identity of the child. Due to the actions of the mother and Elizabeth Watson many people in the immediate locality will know who she is.  But many will not, and in my judgement I owe it to her to preserve her anonymity as far as it is in my power to do so. It will therefore remain a contempt of court, punishable by imprisonment to name her or the school she attends in connection with these proceedings. Those who know who she is must, for her sake, keep the knowledge to themselves, and the injunction restraining the media from identifying her will continue.

These proceedings have had a serious effect on the life of the father, and have threatened the stability of the child. Her mother’s actions are wholly contrary to her interests. The father is entitled to tell the world, and the world is entitled to know, that he is not a paedophile; that he has not sexually abused his daughter, and that the allegations made against him are false.

The mother, on the other hand, whose actions have done so such to disrupt the stability of her child and the family will be prevented under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 from making any application in relation to her daughter without my permission for at least two years.

12 comments


  1. Alastair Patterson says:

    This case simply demonstrates the complete nonsense of the whole process.

    If sexual abuse has occurred then the acts are a matter of fact to found to the civil standard. It has absolutely nothing to do with experts beyond establishing the voracity of the child’s evidence. It is no different to a criminal investigation, except to the civil standard. There is a process, called achieving best evidence (ABE), to settle the matter as a matter of fact within days.

    Alastair

  2. Concerned says:

    If Vicky Haigh thinks she has been mistreated by the judiciary then she should report the judges to the Office for Judicial Complaints. That is what the OJC is for. If Wall LJ really has overlooked or ignored clear evidence that supports Vicky Haigh’s case then that is misconduct on the bench for which the OJC could discipline him. Moving on to Vicky Haigh being told she could not appeal, as far as I am aware that is simply untrue and she should report the lawyers who gave her that advice to their regulators for professional negligence.

    If David Tune is in fact innocent then Ian Josephs’ last sentence is inexcusable. Ian, if you know that there is evidence that Vicky Haigh did not coach her daughter and that her daughter definitely was abused then YOU should send it to the OJC as part of a formal complaint about Wall LJ.

    I have been hoping that Vicky Haigh would release a statement of some kind putting her side of the story, preferably in a jurisdiction where the Family Courts could not touch her.

    My advice to Vicky Haigh would be this: instruct a very senior QC, someone who will intimidate the courts merely by their involvement, and appeal to the Supreme Court. Point out that your daughter, according to established case law precedent, is old enough to have her wishes taken into account and Wall LJ should have asked her where she wanted to live. Have this lawyer draft a very strongly worded complaint to the OJC about Wall LJ and the two previous judges, which should include a demand that all three of them be suspended immediately pending the outcome of the complaint. In addition, if the press reports about the case, even if they were merely quoting the judgement, are untrue complain to the Press Complaints Commission and demand retractions.

    Finally, the behaviour of Doncaster Police has still not been addressed, ask the IPCC for a formal explanation of why it is not investigating.

    You might also usefully take this up with UN Rapporteur on the Rights of the Child.

  3. D Pugh says:

    Perhaps LJ Wall would like to now open up those cases where he has abused his position by imposing gagging orders on parents.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs in this case it took pace behind closed doors and so Vicky Haigh was able to make her allegations and the Father was unable to defend his name.

    There are other cases where LJ Wall has bent the other way to reward mothers like he found Vicky Haigh to be or lacking in evidence.

    I wouldn’t take any judgement of LJ Wall seriously whilst he himself campaigns for closed courts and uses the judicial bench as his pulpit in the same way John Hemming used parliament – they both deserve each other.

  4. lyndamac.com says:

    Well said Ian, I have seen first hand how corrupt the system is , I have networked on a few other cases , similar to this Vicky Haigh case, I am horrified at these experts who say that they are such “big experts” in this field of child abuse ,Not only are they experts , they also have a vast knowledge of sexual abuse . I noted that these so called experts are very good at supplying a CV which runs on for pages and pages the longer the CV is the more you have to worry about them having done a half day course on the subject that makes them an expert .
    I then went on to read the reports , which , changed their advice , their opinion from one paragraph to another , unable to stick to what they had already outlined earlier on in the chronology . These experts will then say ,or write that they ” will have to seek more advice “, a mother has her instincts and also can see that the child has got a problem with a sore area on their intimate parts of their body . The next stage is to contact a GP , the GP will then take swabs , bloods, and results can come back . They will then look at the environmental factors ,which could be causing the problem. It is not rocket science to find the answer to the problem. What goes wrong is an opinion of an untrained teacher or somebody in the multi- agency leaving comments on a file for an expert to later on pick up on and interpret the data.
    This is what is wrong , check that expert out , question the training , and find out just how expert they really are……
    It is any parents job to s eek more advice on health matters , I am nobodies fool or joey when it comes to paperwork , I would say that the organic reason for child abuse should be found out and use forensic tools or pathology , this is not done , as it is interrupted in the Family courts and we all know it ?
    When you claim you are the leader in child abuse on sexual abuse of children I say where is your proof ?
    I am out on this , until the child is old enough to have her say on what really happened to her, but I can guess this , they will be messing with the child and saying your daddy would not do this to you . This is the kind of doubt that child experts ingrain on children. Then , imagine this, what kind of message is that giving to a child ?
    These children being removed will be found in the future , and they will have a voice , about the experience of no contact to mothers who tried to protect them from abusive parents who got residency orders.
    The contact centres are otherwise known as Children’s Prisons and they are using them to research how to cause trauma in children , similarly , just like Hitler did in the concentration camps.
    Mostly it is Tavistock experts who make a lot of money and never let go of the subjects for many years.
    Now then, that is far worst than a threat of prison or contempt of court . Give me prison any day over torture of not seeing your child , or at worst being legally gagged and fodder for the trauma cells …….

  5. Sarah says:

    Who but a total lunatic would go to the lengths Vicky Haigh has gone to, to expose something that isn’t true? To be honest I don’t trust the courts and the so-called justices who sit in them to always act with intregrity. I hope with all my heart that the child is safe and free from harm.

  6. Colby says:

    Linda, you meant section 37 hun :-) because sect 7 is for something completely different, but other than that I completely agree, I cant say about the Haigh case and will not be getting involved in the case, but am interested in reading the full Judgement and the platra of other bits that Wall has said can be released so I can see and make up my own mind,

    I of course know how said “Professionals” like to lie in the Assessments and Courts and are protected so they cant be prosecuted by parents whom know and can prove the truth so will look and see, even though I know some of it will be twisted to suit their needs! but at the same time I also feel that there is also some lies from Haigh otherwise why did she get Watson involved??? that was the worse thing ever she did was getting her involved and in my opinion Watson got what she deserved, she is very anti male and so would fabricate evidence which to be honest is not any better than a SW!

    Colby

  7. Please click on http://vickyhaigh.wordpress.com to see

    1. Vicky’s own statement
    2. excerpts of one of the two police videos of the daughter on the About page
    3. the Evidence page.

    I am happy to send anybody transcripts of Police videos taken in June and November 2009. But I’m too busy changing the name of the girl to X.

  8. ian josephs says:

    Firstly, calls for John Hemming to resign as an MP and for Christopher Booker to be sacked from the Telegraph are absurd as they supported Vicky in her flight to Ireland (on my advice!)to successfully save her unborn child from forced adoption.
    Nothing to do with any paedophile father except that he was denying all contact between the 7 year old girl and her mother.An abuse of the child who was begging to see her.
    Secondly ,Vicky did not appeal against the lower court decisions because her lawyers said she couldn’t (most parents whose children are taken are told that !).
    Thirdly ,Vicky had two police interviews in which her daughter complained of what obviously amounted to sexual abuse by David Tune(her father),She also had medical reports supporting this and reports from her school teachers repeating the same allegations .Judge Wall must admit that whether he believes her or not Vicky has much more than a “scintilla” of evidence!He also said that because the lower court judges found that she coached her daughter she should have accepted their verdicts as “that is the law” is absurd.All the judges in the world could “find” that Ian josephs is a lady with blue eyes ,but that would not change the fact that I am a man with brown eyes!There is in fact not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Vicky coached her daughter to report sexual abuse by her father to her teachers,her doctor,to her mother and finally to the police in two very long recorded interviews !If there is any such evidence other than the opinion of two lower court judges ,well Judge Wall never mentioned it !
    Vicky’s case is now right out in the open,thanks to Judge Wall,but even if he says David Tune is not a paedophile ,would any of you readers leave your kids alone with him??

    1. Clifford Lam says:

      I think the evidence of the case is not listed here, it is just an extremely brief press release. If you have studied law, you will know that the evidence and decisions are very complicated yet very thoroughly listed in a whole bundle, not to be shown on the internet since it is too long, but can be searched through law websites like Westlaw in the future. And have you read the story from the father’s angle? I bet not. You have formed your judgement already, no matter what the judges said.

      And, when the judge said “without a scintilla of evidence”, he is referring to her attack on “all the professionals who have had any contact with the case”, but not about the abuse case itself. Please read the release more carefully.

      I have read all the internet contents written by Vicky and the story from the father’s angle. The father is truly much more believable and natural. All contents from Vicky is full of hatred, almost like planned to defame someone or something. She has achieved what she wants in the end. Of course I have no evidence to say anything, but I believe three independent judges’ ruling as well.

      And you said “denying all contact between the 7 year old girl and her mother”, “An abuse of the child who was begging to see her” – the fact is there must be ways to see her, like supervised visit as the father said, but she has never done that.

      But what you said in the last paragraph – that will you leave a child with Mr Tune? Probably not as you said, because side is already taken, irrespective of anything happen/shown later. For majority of people this is the case. I guess this is exactly why the ruling of not letting the names and the case to be publicized in the first place. The harm to the father is huge if he has not done it. It is rare, but in this extreme case I believe in the three judges ruling, and from what I see on the internet that the mother has raised and written herself, and from the father’s side of the story, that the father has not abuse the child. If there are further abuses so that physical evidence can be seen, it will be reviewed very soon since the girl must also be seen by care units regularly.

  9. lyndamac.com says:

    Some people will say that on the surface this looks to all intent and purposes to be a witch -hunt of the mother Vicky Haigh,and she looks to be in the first instance she is unfortunate to be the first token victim to be taken down by the courts .
    This is just the tip of the iceberg as if the courts pull this off as an example of how to shut people up then more parents will follow on.

    What has been going on for many years now is this form of educating the masses using the law , I first started to show my paperwork to professionals by using the Clayton V Clayton ruling , and Jack Straw wanted to reverse this , but then how would it look? The mention of a draconian law section 91/14 is also being used which will highlight that Vicky is a good parent with her daughters best interests at heart . Jack Straw could not say how many parents each year are barred from court on vexatious litigation, as he claimed his computers could not cope with this.

    The courts primarily can not afford for groups of people to link up fast and be free to share the amount of corrupt or to attempt to analyze , or question it;s use of experts or methodology . from talking about the secret courts as the courts can not afford to have people networking and sharing this information , as if they do they will be out of work and no more money coming in .

    Moving on to ,Liz Watson ,who has without a doubt done a lot of damage to John Hemmings campaign indirectly JH is being also taken down by her actions , the MP should not be held accountable for her cavalier attitude to also carefully selecting what information she wants.
    I can only conclude that just maybe Watson has taken a leaf out of the multi -agency groups, and jumped on their band wagon when she carried out her so called attacks or sought to connect with the social services .

    From first hand experience, we all know It works well for these practitioners to commit crime in the first instance or pay of an expert to say it is not sexual abuse and do not investigate the cases ,We all know that someone was prosecuted in the Sally Clark case for hiding evidence that could have proved her innocence . This was when the paperwork was not all disclosed to all the parties . So who is to say that this case, and thousands of other cases, who are also barred out of court on a section 91/14 , and you can bet money on it to that these cases are also stone walled for years when requesting the copies of all the files using the DPA Act 1998 section 7 are innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice .

    These courts are corrupt end of , and this is now how they are trying to gain back public respect and shut us up . well the courts can try, but so many parents are exposing them and they do not like it .

  10. maggie says:

    After that report what chance of truth do the public have, we the public are only seen as the PLEBS, uneducated tell lies sit on our rear and claim social security, many of us are wrongfully accused of battering and abusing our children, who are then taken and sold into a system that is one of the biggest Indusries in the world. Selling children.
    God said Man will destroy its self.

  11. […] concerning her children, which have been held up by John Hemming MP as a case of injustice. Today the UK Human Rights Blog publishes the full press release, but we still await the judgment. What is notable from the press release but which was not reported […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: