The interweb reports that Sir Nicholas Mostyn, currently being divorced by his wife, has secured an injunction to prevent her from speaking to the press about their divorce. I’m not going to link to the national press reports of that story because it seems to me that it is rather unclear what ought and ought not to be reported. Suffice to say that rumour has it Mrs Mostyn is aggrieved at the fact that their divorce is due to be heard in Taunton, for what appear to be sound reasons designed to ensure her article 6 rights: an independent and impartial tribunal, and one that is seen to be so. Mostyn is of course well known amongst his judicial brethren (and sistren?) in London, and so it seems the Mostyn’s may have to endure a white knuckle ride through Deliverance country before custody of their seven pigs is resolved. I pause to ponder whether the injunction may have been granted to shield our vulnerable pink friends from the glare of publicity and to protect their right to pigacy.
A defence of west country justice may be in order. Mrs Mostyn need not be alarmed, the split in the assets will not be decided by apple bobbing, cider boat races or wurzel impressions, but by s25 MCA 1973. She has little to worry about. Some of the judges even went to law school. No, the quality of justice will be just as good in the sticks, and what’s more they know a good deal more about the application of the welfare checklist to porcine custody disputes than any clever clogs at the RCJ. She may find the attitude of the judiciary towards joint lives maintenance is rather different than in Divorce Central, but this would be true in most courts out of London, if anyone there cared to look.
So, I’m thinking of going to Ladbrokes to place a bet on who gets which pigs. I’m guessing Mr will want to retain Publicity and Seeking, but may wish his wife to retain the rest of the portfolio (James, Munby, Self-Regarding, Pompous, and Pillock). Sadly, we may never know what becomes of these little chaps (let us hope they do not go to market in order to liquidise sufficient capital to rehouse the pair – shh, don’t say “bacon”), for Mrs Mostyn has been prevented from squealing*.
* of course, she might not have been about to whistleblow about piggy cruelty, she might have just been planning to tell the tabloids her husband’s middle name.
I think she objects to the lack of consultation, and it seems she is now going to lose her house through no fault of her own.
BTW have you seen the last two Family Law articles written by Christopher Booker? I realise you are not a fan but it seems to me that he raises valid points about English social workers abusing the law, and interfering in families that social workers in other jurisdictions think are not in need of intervention. Allegedly they have in the last week lied to the Irish courts and caused a 14 year old to try to commit suicide in despair.
Well I sympathise, but if I were her I’d rather not have my case heard by the other side’s colleagues / friends.
I hadn’t seen the recent Booker articles, having resolved to avert my gaze in order to avoid further urges to respond. I could comment at length on all the issues I would take with much of those two articles but I am resisting. It’s more over use of purple prose, more under use of legal and procedural context, and more reporting from one perspective only. There may be gross injustices in the cases he describes but his writing style does nothing to uncover, explain or prove that injustice. I don’t know if there is a valid point about english social workers abusing the law or interfering – I suspect that in the Irish case the application was a Hague application for return following wrongful removal, and if this is the case the return would normally be ordered so that the English court could look at the merits of the case. The article doesn’t give sufficient information to suggest any improper interference. An application under the Hague Convention is not interference in other jurisdictions, it’s a valid application made in reliance upon an international treaty, and courts here do the same in reverse when children are abducted to England. Obviously any action which leads to the attempted suicide of a child is regrettable, but I don’t know how foreseeable that was, what led to the attempt or what bearing the intervention of any social workers or the court had upon it. The skill of Christopher Booker is that he is very good at rendering a scenario of awful injustice in a way that reveals very little in the way of probative or illuminating detail.
Anyway, I may post about those articles if time permits.