Did Harriet Harman mislead parliament? Old letter sheds new light ...

The Guardian, 25 March 2004:

News update 27 MARCH 04:
End secrecy, says Family Court chief

Judge Peter Boshier, who became principal judge of the Family Court this month, added to the political controversy about Family Court's secrecy after MP Nick Smith got convicted for contempt-of-court :

"A stage has been reached wherein, given the unrelenting and unfair criticism of the court, the desirability for privacy, as initially desired, may have to be sacrificed." read >>>

Links:
Denning on Secret Courts

fathercare.org
Assault by Court Staff

UK Family Courts
on fathercare.org

Research
on fathercare.org

Experts
on fathercare.org

Patricia Hewitt, MP, wrote in "The Abuse of Power",
pub. Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1982; p82:

"It is only in the last few years that public debate has focused on the ill effects of Government secrecy. By definition, secrecy conceals its own consequences.
But the information .... through leaks .... has enabled MPs and journalists to begin to assess the damage done by Britain's structures of secrecy. .... When information is witheld neither MPs nor journalists (nor, indeed, voters) can do their jobs properly. Backbench MPs cannot effectively challenge or supervise Ministers and their Departments if they cannot establish the factual basis ...."

27 March 2004
DID HARMAN MISLEAD PARLIAMENT?

Two days ago Harriet Harman told Parliament she "had been misadvised" as to the law regarding forwarding Family Courts papers.

We have just received a copy of a 2002 letter written by Harriet Harman to Tony Banks. MP.

The letter makes plain that as far back as 20th February 2002 Harriet Harman perfectly knew the legal position as regards Family case documents. Harriet Harman's 20th February 2002 letter to Tony Banks MP re Pelling (q.v.) shows that she did not need advice on this matter.

So did she mislead Parliament?

Dr Pelling is currently being prosecuted by Harriet Harman's boss for criminal contempt for supposedly breaching rules relating to court secrecy. Dr Pelling write this to fathercare.org:

" I think the Harman letter to my MP of February 2002 can not only be used in my defence against the AG but could also be used in light of recent events, since the Rule of Court she has breached was specifically drawn to her attention in my case, where my Family case documents were sent from court files by Goldstein to the Treasury Solicitor to use in his defence of my Judicial review case. So she has no excuse.

The following summarises what happened and reproduces her letter in full.

HARMAN KNEW THE RULES OF COURT AGAINST DISCLOSURE

In early 2002 Dr Michael J.Pelling complained to his MP, Mr Tony Banks (West Ham), of violation of privacy and breach of certain of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 by His Honour Judge Goldstein and the Treasury Solicitor in the use Goldstein and the Treasury Solicitor had made of confidential documents on the court files at Bow County Court in his personal Family proceedings cases in that Court, including proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Goldstein was being sued in 1998 by Dr Pelling under Judicial Review of a decision of Goldstein denying Dr Pelling the right to act as a McKenzie Friend.

This case came before the Divisional Court QBD in December 1998. It is reported as R v. Bow County Court ex parte Pelling [1999] 2AER 582, [1999] 2FLR 149, DC.

Goldstein abused his office as resident Judge at Bow to filch confidential documents off Dr Pelling's court files and use them, without leave of the court, in his defence to the Judicial Review.

Goldstein forwarded them to the Treasury Solicitor, who subsequently filed a bundle of them in the Divisional Court for use in the defence. It was only when Dr Pelling objected at the hearing before the Divisional Court that use of these documents was a criminal contempt of court, that they were withdrawn and not further used in the Judicial Review. The documents remained however in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor.

By letter dated 7 January 2002 Dr Pelling complained to his MP of the breach of FPR 1991 Rule 4.23(1) comprised in the disclosure of his confidential Children Act case documents by Goldstein to the Treasury Solicitor and the use made of them in the Judicial Review, and their continued retention by the Treasury Solicitor. He quoted R.4.23(1):-

4.23(1) Notwithstanding any rule of court to the contrary, no document, other than the record of an order, held by the court and relating to proceedings to which this Part applies shall be disclosed, other than to a party, the legal representative of a party, the guardian ad litem, the Legal Aid Board, or a welfare officer, without leave of the judge or district judge.

Breach of this rule is a criminal contempt of court.

Tony Banks MP forwarded Dr Pelling's letter to Harriet Harman, Solicitor General. She replied on 20 February 2002 to Mr Banks who forwarded the response to Dr Pelling.

Her letter in full is as follows:-

The Rt.Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
Solicitor General,
9 Buckingham Gate,
London SW1E 6JP

Tony Banks MP,
306 High Street,
London E15 1AJ.

20th February 2002

Dear Tony,
YOUR CONSTITUENT DR MICHAEL PELLING

Thank you for your letter dated 28th January, enclosing further correspondence from your constituent Dr Michael Pelling.

In his letter dated 7 January your constituent seeks a full explanation of the circumstances in which documents in family proceedings came to be used in relation to his application for judicial review.

You are already aware that this was the identical subject of his application to commit various members of Treasury Solicitor and others for contempt of court in June 2000, and, whether or not Dr Pelling still alleges contempt, in my view a sufficient explanation of the circumstances was set out in the evidence which was before the Court in relation to that application, and in the judgments of the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal.

In these circumstances, I do not intend to require any further investigation of the circumstances, which in my view are already clear enough. I would however confirm that arrangements have been made to return the documents to the appropriate Court files, and I should add that it is regretted that they were produced in proceedings without representatives handling the litigation on behalf of the respondent to those proceedings having directed their mind sufficiently to the provisions [of the Family Proceedings Rules] to which Dr Pelling draws attention.

Yours Harriet

Links and related papes on the web:

Secret UK Courts

Click & Go Navigation

top of page