Neither a Paedophile Nor a Paediatrician

More information is filtering into the public domain about the contempt of court proceedings connected to Vicky Haigh, and to the Children Act proceedings 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 yesterday was the absence of any appeal by the Mother against the finding of no sexual abuse or the finding she had manufactured those allegations. I have noticed a number of tweets from people who ought to know better today dismissing the press release as another example of corrupt judges and Wall LJ as untrustworthy.

The UKHR Blog post also lists some other good articles on the topic published yesterday and which are far more comprehensive than my short post of the same date.

I will link to the judgment when it is published, but as I am away this weekend you might also want to keep an eye on the UKHR Blog or Bailii.

9 thoughts on “Neither a Paedophile Nor a Paediatrician

  1. My personal take on this case is that Wall’s judgement represents a miscarriage of justice.

    I also believe that Vicky Haigh has been given appalling legal advice. Her main advisor seems to have been Elizabeth Watson. Watson is a member of a sort of pseudo-legal cult called the Freemen-of-the-Land; they believe that the law does not apply to them unless they consent to it. There is a useful explanation of their beliefs here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

    This may explain the apparent advise given to Haigh not to engage with the legal process by not attending hearings, submitting statements or making appeals. Watson may have time now to reflect whether this is the most constructive approach to family cases.

    The campaigner Michael Pelling is as critical of the family justice system as anyone, but always points out that it is all we have, and we have to use it as best we can. That philosophy brought him considerable success in many cases.

  2. “What is notable from the press release but which was not reported yesterday was the absence of any appeal by the Mother against the finding of no sexual abuse or the finding she had manufactured those allegations.”

    Have you ever been on the receiving end of months and months of family court action, fighting to protect your child?

    The stress is unimaginable to anyone that hasn’t endured it and I’d have thought someone in your position would be only too aware of how many turn to the bottle, fall off the edge of society, leave the country or indeed this mortal coil.

    Am I susprised she has not appealed? No. Neither did I despite it being abundantly clear in my case what the turth was. Nine years of family court hell does that to a person. I walked away at the end of it all to preserve my ability to come back later and fight again. The day one loses their children within a warped system where each player gains from the continuing fight is the day I’ll accept their suggestion whether or not this mother was right or wrong to walk away.

    I know what it feels like to be on the blunt end of UK family ‘justice’. In my experience, it doesn’t work and it breaks people unecessarily.

    • I’ve noted in response to a previous comment that on one level it is not surprising that there was no appeal. I accept that it is difficult to appeal findings of fact. But that really isn’t the point. The point is that there was no appeal, but that the alternative action was both extraordinary and misguided.

  3. Let’s face it ,there was not a “scintilla” of evidence that Vicky coached her 5 year old daughter [edited]
    How did the judge find against her?He backed the social workers !
    Why did Vicky not appeal? Because she was told she couldn’t ! (sound familiar?)

  4. The judgment is now on Bailii

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B16.html

    There seem to have been a number of adults who know this child who strived to keep the child protected from publicity. Maybe others could stop to think about exactly what has been achieved in the public interest for any of this to be exposed.

  5. Whilst it’s understandaable that there has been some focus on the whys and wherefores of an appeal against the finding of fact, there is an uncontrovertable truth that stems from this case that should leave all involved highly concerned: the child has not been believed [edited for legal reasons].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *