Booker Booby Prize

John Bolch at Family Lore has pointed out this judgment in whichTelegraph journalist Christopher Booker is subject to some strongly worded criticism from HHJ Bellamy. It is worth reading in full. I will not post substantively on it at present, owing to pressures of work and because Adam Wagner at UK Human Rights Blog has prepared this excellent analysis of the case and the issues it highlights (Post entitled “Judge: Telegraph reporting of family case was “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong””). I hope that the Telegraph will sit up and listen.

4 thoughts on “Booker Booby Prize

  1. Nick Langford

    Christopher Booker may well be wrong, and it may even be that case that one day we shall know whether or not he is wrong, but for now I won’t take Bellamy’s word for it, any more than I would take the parents’. Metaphyseal fractures are highly controversial and their interpretation is fraught with difficulty. It is not impossible that Bellamy could have arrived at a different finding of fact.

    I regret the standard of Booker’s writing; there is much that is wrong with the family courts and there is a legitimate and necessary campaign against them. Unfortunately Booker’s slap-dash journalism is damaging the credibility of the campaigners.

  2. […] have written two posts: “Brought to Booker” and more recently “Booker Booby Prize” and “Booker v Bellamy Round 2“. Although others apparently within his orbit have […]

  3. […] However, it is true that whilst engaged in a bit of undergwoaf wummaging myself I discovered a really interesting article in the March issue of Family Law by the other Bellamy – His Honour Judge Clifford Bellamy: “Can The Press Be Trusted?” ([2011] Fam Law 260). It is the text of a speech given at the ALC conference in the latter part of last year, so many of you may have read / heard it before, but I had missed it until now. It puts in context the judgments in Re X, Y and Z (Care Proceedings: Costs) [2010] EWHC B22 (Fam) and Re S (A Child) [2010] EWHC B2 (Fam) (subsequently Re S (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 325 and Re S (Transfer of Residence) [2010] EWHC B19 (Fam)) and also the subsequent judgment in the case of Re L (A Child: Media Reporting) [2011] EWHC B8 (Fam) in which Bellamy was highly critical of the involvement of Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker. […]

  4. “I hope that the Telegraph will sit up and listen.”

    it is a great pity the the legal establishment and the Family Court establishment cannot change (sounds like a family brought before the Family Court doesn’t it?) and sit up and listen.

    I had thought that as the scandal of the family Courts came out they would according to all the psychological principles react in this way.

    As to the ALC is is “all the usual suspects” as they are campaigners for a certain view of Child Protection for years.
    It is highly significant they should come bursting out of the bushes now as the scandal breaks.

    Adam Wagner UK Human Rights Blog is anything but an excellent analysis of the case particularly of the issues it claims to highlight.

    This is apparant in view of what insiders know of the case and a second opinion of the opposing view to those of the pro- metaphyseal party was needed urgently.

    Clifford Bellamy has good reason to dislike the press becoming interested in some of his cases as does Nicholas Wall in the light of the P, C& S affaire at the ECHR.

    As I have said before Booker has yet to get it wrong despite the temper-tantums when the press does its job and exposes scandal.

    The issue is can the Family Court establishment be trusted behind its wall of secrecy, and in all cases of secrecy like this, it cannot because there is no accountability.

Leave a Reply

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