|
| TRIAL of UK A.G. v. Pelling will be on 8,9,10 February 2005 details | |||||||||
|
Click & Go Navigation
Contact 5 Journal
Click & Go
Navigation |
Private and Confidential THE LEGAL SECRETARIAT TO THE LAW OFFICERS Our Ref: CONT/20/03 31st July 2003 Dear Dr Pelling, I write on behalf of the Attorney General concerning two different proceedings under the Children Act 1989 where three distinct aspects of your conduct appear on the information presently available to him to be in serious contempt of court. The proceedings in question comprise (1) Matin v Ali in which you appeared for the father as a Mackenzie [sic] friend on issues of access and residence until your removal from that role by direction of the Judge at the close of proceedings on 23rd January 2003; and (2) the case of Pelling v Bruce-Williams in which you were yourself a party and which concerned issues as to the residence of your child. I use the full titles of the actions in this letter for ease of reference, though for public purposes they should be titled anonymously. You will be aware from your attendance at the recent hearing before the President of the Family Division in Matin v Ali that the Attorney General has been given permission to use information and documents relating to the proceedings for the purpose of deciding whether or not to commence committal proceedings. A. Matin v Ali: events of 23rd January 2003 On 23rd January 2003 you attended a hearing in private at which Mr Justice Singer ordered that the child should stay with his mother from 23rd to 25th January 2003. He issued a direction that the father should leave the building and wait near the front of the building for a telephone call from the CAFCASS officer in order to facilitate the implementation of that order; the child having in the immediate past resided with the father against the wishes of his mother and despite a residence order in her favour. The judge's direction clearly reflected his concern that there should be no pressure exerted by or on behalf of the father, since it was apparent to all that the boy might need persuasion to go with the mother. After the Judge had left Court, you intervened on more than one occasion in discussions between the CAFCASS officer (Mrs Raleigh) and the child. Your actions and comments were plainly designed to ensure that the child did not leave with the mother as the Judge had ordered. You ignored requests to desist from both Mrs Raleigh and representatives from the Tipstaff's office. The Attorney General has considered an account of the incident published in a newsletter entitled Contact (the issue for April 2003) of which you were editor, which appears to confirm that your motive was to frustrate the implementation of the Judge's order and the clear intentions behind his directions. Your conduct at Court on 23rd January 2003 would therefore appear to be a serious interference with the administration of justice and a contempt of court. B. Matin v Ali: subsequent publication in the issue of "Contact" for April 2003 I refer above to what I take to be your account of the events of 23rd January 2003 in the newsletter called "Contact" which is and has been freely available on the Internet and circulated in paper form. You are described as the newsletter's editor. I enclose a copy for ease of reference. Not only does the article contain an extensive description of matters, which plainly arise from, and relate to, the Children Act proceedings which were conducted in private, including a number of allegations against the mother, but also names the father, the mother and the child. I ask you to confirm that you were the author of this piece, although you are not obliged to provide this information (see below). This appears to be a clear and serious breach of the confidentiality attaching to Children Act proceedings by virtue of s12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (as amended). You will also appreciate that identifying the child in these circumstances is an offence under s97(2) of the Children Act (as a amended) [sic]. From the last matter addressed below, it is clear that you were fully aware of these provisions and their effect. C. Pelling v Bruce-Williams: publication in Contact In the same issue of "Contact" you publish the entire judgment in your and your former wife's application and cross application for residence orders under the Children Act. You unsuccessfully applied to the Court at the time for the judgment to be given publicly, and your appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. Your application to the European Court of Human Rights also failed, that Court expressly rejecting your contention that Article 6.1 of the European Convention required judgment to be given publicly. Despite these decisions (the last of which you report elsewhere in the same issue), you have published the whole judgment including (in paragraph 11) extracts from the Court Welfare Report. Your child was five in August 1996, when the original judgment was given and is still, as you mention in your article in "Contact", a child now. Publication therefore appears to be in open defiance of the confidentiality restrictions in s12 of the Administration of Justice Act and of Rule 4.23 of the Family Proceedings Rules. From the heading: "The judgment that Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss & The European Court of Human Rights do not want you to see", it appears that your defiance of the confidentiality restrictions for private proceedings is calculated and deliberate. For these various reasons the Attorney General is minded to issue a summons or summonses for your committal to prison (leaving the Court the option of imposing alternative penalties). However, before doing so, he wishes to give you the opportunity to advance any reasons why you suggest this course should not be taken. You are, of course, under no obligation to say anything, and you should be aware that any response to this invitation might be admissible in evidence. I strongly suggest that you take independent legal advice. I also note that the issue of Contact remains available on the Internet. I invite you to take immediate steps to ensure that it is removed (with any other issues of Contact which contain offending material). The Attorney General expects to receive any reply by Monday 18th August 2003. Yours sincerely, KAREN HARROLD Background: Why CONTACT
5 Journal is  |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
webdesign
©MMIII fathercare.org |
