Recently
there is a crop of cases involving fathers' rights campaigners in
which UK law does not seem to be applied equally. In the cases of the
prominent campaigner and father Tim Line, as well as the founder of
Fathers 4 Justice F4J Matt O'Connor, the law seems to be operating
differently.
Similarly the author brought an action for defamation against the well known feminist family law barrister, Lucy Reed, in the Bristol County Court which includes aspects that may also apply to both cases involving Tim Line and Matt O'Connor, as well as fathers more generally seeking to act as litigants in person.
Tim Line and Matt O'Connor |
Similarly the author brought an action for defamation against the well known feminist family law barrister, Lucy Reed, in the Bristol County Court which includes aspects that may also apply to both cases involving Tim Line and Matt O'Connor, as well as fathers more generally seeking to act as litigants in person.
.
The
introduction of the Human Rights Act means UK law now consists of a
mixture of a written constitution and case laws or 'precedents'. The
Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a
way which is incompatible with the Convention. It also requires the
judiciary to take account of any decisions, judgement or opinion of
the European Court of Human Rights, known as the Strasbourg court,
and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is
compatible with Convention rights.
The
action brought in the Bristol County Court hinged on whether the
applicant has lawful permission to publish the County Court judgments
from his family proceedings?
In
Bristol, before a Deputy Judge, counsel for Lucy Reed stated on
record, also transcribed in the official judgment, that there was no
such permission and therefore the claimant was guilty of contempt
which is punishable with imprisonment.
A
similar situation has arisen in the case of Tim Line who has
consistently argued that the lawyer representing the other side lied
on oath. His situation is more complicated because the application
was made in a Magistrates Court and although witnesses saw a
transcript taken at the time no official record is currently
available.
Judgment from Lord Justice Scott-Baker |
However
instead of allowing an appeal on the grounds that the Deputy Judge
was misled by counsel for Lucy Reed permission to appeal PTA was
refused. This meant Bristol County Court ignored the previous
judgments from the Court of Appeal in favour of the new order made by
a Deputy Judge.
First legal challenge to publication |
Second legal challenge - Suspended sentence |
Court Order quashing suspended sentence |
It
is unjust for Lucy Reed to claim this money when she is aware that
the author has the relevant lawful authority to publish the judgments
and only obtained a decision in her favour by commission and
omission, in other words, by instructing her counsel to lie to the
Deputy Judge in Bristol and failing to correct the falsehood twice in
the High Court.
Unfortunately
according to the Somerset and Avon police report completed by
Inspector Sweeting,
I
have serious doubts about whether it would be appropriate for the
police to investigate when you take into consideration the fact that
six court of appeal judges have looked at the case without ruling in
Mr Miller's favour.
But
Inspector Sweeting must know the opposite is true. According to the evidence six
court of appeal judges have looked at the substantive issue and ruled in the
author's favour not against him
and Inspector Sweeting as well as the Independent Police Complaints Commission is turning a 'blind eye' to a point of law
which is an allegation made against the police by Matt O'Connor.
These cases have
profound implications. The law is the law because
it applies equally to everybody. These example show how the judiciary
are using the force of the police to apply their own wishes on an ad hoc basis. This is neither formal justice nor lawful but a form of 'bullying'.