This new write-up (this doc) focuses on specific
negative effects if Straw reverses
Clayton v Clayton as he said he would in Parliament in December 08.
This is what I and other who know the system very
well think is what Jack Straw’s proposals on opening up the family
courts really mean. A description of what would now almost certainly be
completely suppressed that now is not
And just to highlight what we really care about, on
my email list there are hundreds who will receive this email
because you were able to track me down on the web to ask for
help or a referral for your own troubling custody case or after a threat
of forced adoption. After you saw my media coverage. Particularly
various material on the web that IDENTIFIES me. Hopefully at least some
were helped in a positive way. If Straw gets his way none of you would
have ever been able to source help from people like me as all our
identities must forever be suppressed.
And what
might seem like a side issue, however as usual the establishment is
decades behind the real world.
Have a look
at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQBLrkC1Yw (Video)
A quite harmless film clip put up on You Tube by me and my daughter Esti
after she saw that lots have people have put up their own similar videos
and thought ours was just as good. The contemporary teen or pre-teen
virtually lives on You Tube. As do many adults. I pointed out to the
Appeal Court that the pre-Clayton legislation made it illegal to do this
ordinary act. And Straw’s planned legislation would make it again
illegal. (Because it is virtually impossible to use the web without
leaving a trail of your “identity” thus a parent who has been in custody
court, if they cannot ever “identify” themselves in public, or their
child, would be breaking the law putting up such a harmless video.
Anonymity – his stated aim in Parliament to reverse
Clayton v Clayton
The way reporting works, especially after Clayton v
Clayton, is that if a court reporter files a story on a case that
clearly has some wide public interest or some exceptional human element
that will make a story for the media, the court reporter will cover some
of the basic legal matters – especially if there are important new
“precedents” arising. Then after the case (the judgement is released)
the court reporter will circulate the contact details of parties in the
case (assuming they have volunteered them) through various news
agencies, and then print and other media will try to contact one or
other parties to hear their “personal” story and particularly their
version of what was behind the case. All usually by phone.
And here is where Straw breaks down. Virtually all
press coverage takes place because the media are presently allowed to
probe a party (who volunteers) for personal details that he or she may
wish to give / think are relevant. It is that personal story that makes
the whole subject of family justice nowadays of interest to the media.
It is often all they want – they don’t want to hear dry legal swings and
roundabouts. One assumes their focus groups and or management have
decided that these human stories sell papers. Without a doubt it is well
known that within these stories is also almost always a raft of
important “basic” information that parents who may have similar issues
benefit from hearing – “how to avoid that problem”; how to remedy this
problem”…. “a salutary lesson to avoid doing x y or z”.
The simple fact is that reporters have had free rein
to report on almost anything in the Appeal Court for a long time. Before
Clayton V Clayton (coinciding with the successful campaigns of
protestors and people like Bob Geldof who were raising awareness via Tv
programmes – all happening between 04 and 06), not many stories appeared
in the papers or in other media. Except for “specialist” press such as
Solicitor’s magazines or Campaigning organisations’ publications (e.g. “Mackenzie”
– the Families Need Fathers magazine). After 06 more stories were
appearing – partly because Geldof and co had elevated the issue. And
partly because the Clayton case allowed far more personal information
(such as WHO the story related to – a fundamental, including some
routine personal information – job, age, marital status, that kind of
thing) to be broadcast or printed.
Summing the real implications of Jack Straw’s
proposals:
Parents whose children were unlawfully (or likely
unlawfully) removed by Social Services and who suffered similar legal
nightmares who became well known through reference to their personal
stories in the media:
Fran Lyon
The Websters
John Hemming MP (threat of only – to one of his
children)
Sally Clarke
Angela Canning
And various others
There was considerable sympathetic and intelligent
media coverage of those individuals – personal stories in the media
Parents who came to national prominence connected to
custody issues – stories of injustice or at least extremely stressful
court cases that often wrongly caused their children to be estranged:
Mark Harris (see my main page)
Jason Hatch
David Chick - Robin
David Blunkett
Bob Geldof
The McCartneys
The Ritchies
Birgit Cunningham
Jack Frost
Layton Bevan
Chick, Frost and Geldof wrote books on their terrors
in the system that all sold well. Layton has several campaigning
websites that are annually used by many millions.
Fathers who came to prominence with positive stories
– stories that positively inform the general public how to best deal
with a custody issue:
Matt O’Connor – his book as well as being the story
of Fathers4Justice which he founded, also tells an important positive
story about how he and his ex wife made up for the sake of their (named)
boys after a court case.
Simon Clayton (and Esti, my daughter). Apart from my
own story on press freedom etc., we did some media interviews which
focus very positively on the “template” solution to the custody dispute
over Esti – Esti was the first child in the UK to have a “bill of
rights” written into a case ending. Judges heralded it as a really
important Template” for other parents.
And likely a fair few others who I have omitted to
mention.
Miscellaneous TV programs since 2004 covering various
aspects of custody –injustices, exploring the reality of the system,
personal stories, and probably most importantly parents talking in
person about how they would do it better next time. In other words
important informative and helpful programmes that not only should
ordinary people be able to see because they inform where their tax money
is going to but also that probably many if not most parents might
benefit from watching
Such programs have featured some of the above
characters – almost all featuring Geldof, and other parents such as Jim
Parton (ex Chief of FNF), Ian Mackay of FNF, Ray Barry, and many others
– just ordinary parents. People – all highly responsible people, quite
happy to participate in person, none washing dirty laundry in public,
and surely none appearing in any way that is harmful or particularly
embarrassing for their children.
YET ALL THE ABOVE WOULD BE STOPPED IF CLAYTON IS
REVERSED.
And then all the above people plus many thousands,
even hundreds of thousands of other parents whom feel they have
something important to say on their journey through the family justice
system, will nowadays have their own blog, Facebook page or website. Or
they may participate in email forums – there are many, where they will
air their complaints. Virtually all of this will be unlawful, if your
email address (such as mine) is your
name@somethingorother.com
and you have been in custody court, even years and years
ago, you can’t even go on a forum or have a blog where you might say
“feeling sad today because I haven’t seen my lovely daughter Jane Doe
for two months because I have a restrictive custody regime…….” You
probably wouldn’t even be able to say that statement substituting Jane
Doe with “X” because you are identifying her by association with your
own name or email address appearing somewhere on the same page! Gagged.
Gagged potentially for many years.
I know all this because this is exactly the reasoning
that won my case – I pointed this out to the Appeal Court. I know this
issue. And from what I can deduct “reversing Clayton v Clayton” can only
mean just that -
The Clayton Appeal Court judgement – long, boring,
full of various misapprehensions, in my opinion quite silly in places, a
far too personal war between me and L.J Wall, is essentially about a
fairly ordinary person being able to be identified in public after a
custody case had finished. The solution to the custody case (settled
fully a year earlier) was then heralded as an important “template” that
(many) other parents would benefit from knowing about. So I said to the
appeal court that as someone then who had some access to the media for
various reasons, it made sense that I should be able to publicise that
positive ending, and in person. And for various legal reasons that were
put forward they had to agree. I did not go into the Appeal Court saying
there were any huge injustices that I wanted to highlight nor did I go
in saying that I wished to “out” any particular perceived evil-doers.
Though they might have thought I might yet do just that (which I never
had time to – I was too busy focusing on the positive). Though my own
experiences and what I wanted to talk about were largely irrelevant as I
was making the wider points. So the precedent was set that allowed
anyone to be identified – tell their story, in person, unless there were
obvious disturbing aspects which might be very damaging if they became
public in which case a court might impose anonymity again.
By reversing Clayton we assume that what this must
mean is that NO ONE can be identified as a parent having been in a
custody or care case because by association their children will easily
be identified. And furthermore it will certainly be a step backwards in
respect of the affairs of the well known or celebrity because before
Clayton the then anonymity rules were ignored in respect of celebrities
(one rule for the toffs one for the plebs) but surely if Clayton is
reversed then that will have to coincide with a new regime where
celebrity or special cases will also remain forever unreportable- at
least until the children reach 18. In other words even Bob Geldof’s
excellent programmes – inconceivably harmful to any child, though likely
causing embarrassment to a fair few judges and lawyers, would be
unlawful. No one, not even Sir Bob, if they were a parent of a child who
they had gone to court to fight for, if those children were still under
18, could say so in public. Or have the fact mentioned in public.
O’Connor’s, Chick’s, Frost’s, Geldof’s books
completely unprintable – none of the names of people who were incidental
to the stories who were parents of children they had been to court over
could be identified (in any way). Especially the authors. So the books
fall flat. Most of the participants in those Tv programmes (and other
similar programmes we know of currently being made) can now not be
identified. Plug pulled on them. And all those newspaper and Magazine
articles – yes even the ones on my own extremely positive resolution – a
“useful template” to quote the famous High Court Judge Mr Justice
Hedley…………stopped. Or stripped of absolutely any human content that
makes it of any interest to the papers or public for that matter. All
virtually unprintable.
Thus, in reality, all stopped. For good.
That is what reversing Clayton v Clayton surely can
only mean…………
The question must be is that what we want?
And if you don’t think this is progress then go back
to my main page,
http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/response_to_jack_straw.htm read more, and particularly look at the end section
which requests help with the lobby. If I can garner some further support
we will develop a proper lobby on this. And we will also try to develop
a proper campaign – informing the public and asking people to engage
with their Mps or other representatives.
And on his other proposals:
Open Courts. Jack Straw himself implies in
his interview with Camilla Cavendish that he was surprised that not even
he had a right to enter a family court – perhaps to monitor the quality
of justice therein. As far as we can see his proposals will still mean
that neither he nor anyone else would have any right of entry, except
(with limits) accredited journalists.
We wish the doors open to anyone – especially
specialist analysts who wish to study and monitor what is happening in
the courts. These might be writers academics or other concerned citizens
- perhaps people from Liberty or the like – i.e. not accredited
journalists. (The courts themselves do not keep any proper records of
outcomes).
Jack Straw mentions that in serious rape cases the
court is usually completely open (anyone can walk in off the street) but
there are restrictions on what can be discussed or allowed into the
public domain. And he points out such a system works perfectly. Exactly
the same principles should apply to the family courts.
Journalists being allowed to access family courts.
It is suggested that this will be on an unrestricted basis but some
reports have talked of it being only “accredited” journalists. Either
way there are likely to be some hurdles put in place for the media.
Which will in reality put some restrictions in place – perhaps
especially for regional newspapers on a smaller budget. And in any event
(any) media (or anyone else) is already allowed into the family court
Appeal Court.
What happens in the real world is this: Firstly
newspapers do not have the budget to send out roving reporters who will
monitor regularly the family courts. And even if a newspaper decided to
take interest in one or a number of specific cases ongoing in the family
court a second reality is that cases almost always are spread out over
six months, nine months or even longer. There is rarely any one
condensed all encompassing session where all detail of a case is laid
out in an easy to follow way (in fact much is done on paper and
virtually any ordinary citizen is prohibited ever having sight of those
papers. And that will not change. And much also happens in backroom
negotiation.
Furthermore the practice of the court is if there is
to be a final hearing – where much of the case might be rounded up and
say a father alleges that there has been injustice because he has for
perhaps the last nine months been wrongly prevented by the court from
seeing his children, in the final hearing, even if that turns out to be
the eventual conclusion (i.e. there are judged to be inadequate reasons
to prevent his ongoing life with his children) the court will very
actively steer the case away from discussing even this past injustice.
So unless a journalist has followed the case right the way through from
day 1 reality will often be hidden from the journalist.
Anyway, how many (junior) journalists even stay with
the same paper or in the same department for nine months or a year!
In other words it will be quite unusual that a
particular journalist will be sitting in on all phases of a case
normally ongoing for often approaching a year. That year of a “live”
case comprising a few hours one day every couple of months in court –
and sometimes in the judges private chambers which we lust assume will
off limits to journalists.
At the moment in the Appeal Court there are court
reporters who are perhaps monitoring several ongoing Appeals on any day
– there are not enough to go round all ongoing Appeals at any one time
(usually a day or two in court and then judgement handed out a few
months later). There is not manpower it would seem for any one reporter
to sit in on the whole of any one particular hearing. Unless it is
exceptionally newsworthy such as that of a high profile celebrity.
And anyway we believe that Straw’s proposals will
bring in new restrictions to the way Appeal Court cases can be dealt
with that are not already there.
Main campaign page is
http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/response_to_jack_straw.htm
Please
support the campaign. Others have indicated they are concerned and a
groundswell of opposition needs to develop. Please try to read through
that main page and see if you can support.
© Simon Clayton Jan 2009
Other Pages of interest:
Response to Jack Straw’s proposals on Family Court Openness
Critique of recent newspaper coverage and Ministry of Justice position
Negative effects if Straw reverses Clayton v Clayton
User friendly summary of: The Response to Jack Straw
