
How Britain's most secret court imprisoned a grandmother - koenigdavidmj
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/the-terrifying-tale-of-how-britains-most-secret-court-imprisoned/
======
triplesec
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.

~~~
djsumdog
Ad hominem. His views of climate change have nothing to do with tragedy of
this family court case. Why do you bring it up?

If you want to challenge the story, present other sources with the other view
point. Don't go after one messenger, and use prior bad or not-bad acts to cast
the journalist in a negative light. That's very not helpful.

Yes yes, a series of bad journalism can show a pattern and that's how
prosecutors go after organized crimes and serial killers. But don't pretend
there are bias and unbias journalists. Everyone has a bias. Most of what we
see is propaganda and not news.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Not believing in climate change is relevant to thinking about whether someone
is likely to be a trustworthy source because not believing in c.c. means we
should be skeptical of that person's writing and conclusions. It's equivalent
to believing the world is 8000 years old, or evolution doesn't exist, or jesus
rode on dinosaurs.

It doesn't have anything to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with
being educated and drawing reasonable conclusions about the world.

~~~
powertower
Being a "climate change denier" can mean almost anything today.

Such as that you believe that climate is changing not because of CO2 levels
but rather due to other atmospheric gases or pollutants, or the sun's
emissions, etc.

Or maybe you believe that the models being used are politically driven (which
is a provable fact BTW).

You can still agree that there is a problem, but you just don't agree on the
causes 100% or the solutions 100%.

So unless you know the specifics of what this person is not agreeing with you
on, _it is a meaningless and non-relevant label_.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Please prove that the models of client change are used politically. You appear
to be trying to dismiss concerns around climate change are some kind of
irrelevant politically driven scheme. Asserting that it's a conspiracy, only
politically driven requires some evidence. You can't dismiss it just on your
whim.

------
barrkel
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.

------
jacquesm
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
> 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
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

~~~
triplesec
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.

~~~
Veen
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.

~~~
digi_owl
Gotta "love" random appearance of latin in (english) law.

~~~
triplesec
Yes, and English is full of them, especially in law. It's hardly random.
English law was informed by Roman jurisprudence. And Latin was used in books
and courts (especially ecclesiastical courts). I'd have to look up more
details, and if interested, your searches further into this would easily
surpass anything i can remember!

------
ghufran_syed
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.

~~~
dilap
Sexism and ageism appear to be the least of this woman's problems at this
moment.

Perspective, please?

~~~
golergka
Nobody's saying that those are _her_ problems.

------
DanBC
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.

------
crystalmeph
[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
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.

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

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Investigate further because the Telegraph is probably only giving you half the
story.

~~~
TillE
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).

~~~
sgt101
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.

------
mobiuscog
"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.

------
Silhouette
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
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-...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-15-care-cases-looming-crisis.pdf)

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-...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/pfd-view-14-care-cases.pdf)

> 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)

------
proaralyst
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
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
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
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...](http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-
caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/)

------
libeclipse
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.

------
megous
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
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/Document...](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)

> 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/)

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

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

------
digi_owl
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.

~~~
jaclaz
Search for "Alessandra Pacchieri", the story has been published on most UK
newspapers, including:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesar...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesarean-
adoption-bipolar-woman-violence) [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-ba...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-baby-adopted-forced-caesarean-case-uk)
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/1050307...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/10503079/Alessandra-Pacchieri-Pitiful-tale-of-a-mother-and-her-lost-
child.html)

~~~
digi_owl
So a much less clear cut (ugh, sorry) case than it first appeared...

------
danbmil99
TL;DR: Britain has no Bill of Rights

~~~
dragonwriter
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)

