London, 16 March 2004: Fathers' rights campaigner is awarded damages today over an assault by a High Court official who "stepped over the boundary" in carrying out his duties.

The judge dismissed the evidence that the Court Official, Mr Johnson, had given to the court.

The judge said:

"... bearing in mind the many different and conflicting things that Mr Johnson had said on a variety of topics,and the way he gave his evidence, I do not feel able to rely on any of his answers as accurate statement of what he actually believed at the time any more than I feel able to rely on anything else that he said.

I am not saying that he deliberately lied to me: rather, he now has no real or reliable perception of what happened in the corridor, what he was thinking about at the time (either about his powers or how he should react to the situation which had arisen) or, indeed, why he did what he did. Neither is it clear how he interpreted what he thought that the Judge had directed or (perhaps because of the way the questions were phrased) that he was necessarily focussing on the issue of any physical contact, however trivial. For these reasons, I do not place any weight on these answers either and they do not feature in my analysis."

The judge discribed Dr Pelling as a "highly intelligent, articulate and persuasive advocate".

Read judgement in full