NEWS- 18 December 2003:
In the case of cot deaths mothers have been wrongly locked up on the basis of expert evidence.

In the case of cot deaths the Appeal Court found large scale injustice resulting from the Family Court's belief that justice must be done in secret, and by banning the public and independent experts from attending courts to scrutinise court appointed experts.

Instead of dealing with identical injustice, the UK Government moves to imprison critics of secret family court proceedings.

Link:
Denning on Secret Courts

Dr. Pelling's story

As part of the legal moves to silence Dr Pelling, a Mr. Phillip Golding had been instructed to trawl the Internet to gather evidence with which to imprison Dr Pelling.

Golding's witness statement makes amusing reading for anyone who is interested in how the Government Department in charge of protecting children in court proceedings, uses computers once a father alleges abuse of a vulnerable child.

AFFIDAVIT
of
PHILLIP Michael IAN GOLDING [OCR version]

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AN ORDER OF COMMITTAL

"I, PHILLP MICHAEL IAN GOLDING, of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Seaborne House, 54 - 60 Victoria Street, London SWIE 6QB MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:-

1. I am employed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/1 a copy of a journal called  'Contacts' dated April 2003.

2. On 28 November 2003 and 3 December 2003, using a standard PC, I conducted an internet search to seek to establish how and to what extent two articles in Contact could be read on the internet. These articles were "MR JUSTICE SINGER CHILD ABUSER'' (the "Singer article") to be found on pages 1-3 and "The JUDGMENT THAT DAME ELIZABETH BUTLERSLOSS & THE EUROPEAN COURT DID NOT WANT YOU TO SEE'' (the "Alexander judgment") on pages 11-15.

3. I would first refer the Court to the issue of Contact as published. I draw the Court's attention to the column at the top right of page 6 under the sub- heading "Dr Pelling publicly pronounces judgment'' and, in particular, the last sentence which reads "So now the whole world can read the Judgment via the Internet - just e-mail paulmw@ji-net.com and ask for a copy - and we are producing it in this issue of Contact". There is a further reference to this email address on page 16 which states

"With a view to maximizing the exposure of the rotten English Family law system copyright in this publication is hereby waived. Articles may be reproduced in full or in summary, but acknowledgement would be appreciated. CONTACT No5 is also available as a Word document on request from paulmw@ji-net.com .''

4.The exhibits to which I refer hereafter in this affidavit are copies of the documents which I have printed off the relevant web sites. I used the leading search engine known as Google. A document headed 'Our Search: Google Technology', which provides information about the features of Google, is now produced and shown to marked PMlG/2. For the purpose of conducting a search I used the following search terms –

"michael pelling''
"fathers4justice''
"yahoo groups attorney general pelling"
"child access orders'

5. I found no difficulty in finding sites and printing off material from the various websites. Two sites provided the Singer article in full ( exhibits PMIG/6 andPMIG/13). I was also able to access both the Singer article and the Alexander judgment in full from exhibits PMIG/4 and PMIG/7 (as can be seen from exhibit PMIG/11) Several sites provided links to an e-mail address run by Paul Warren from which the journal Contact could be obtained in Word format on request.

6. I first searched "michael pelling" and found 83 items. The first ten items are now produced and shown to me marked PMlG/3.

7. I selected item 4 "Open Justice campaign 2003'' (HMP/www.fathercare.org/pelling02.htm). That item is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/4. I then clicked on a link inviting me to read more about Dr Pelling (now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/5). Clicking on the link "Dr Pelling's Story", I was redirected to a Fathers for Life site which contained extracts from Contact, including the Singer article. This is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/6.

8. The "Hits Counter", which displays the number of visitors to the site, indicates that the Fathers for Life site has been visited on 359,522 occasions since 19 June 2001. Exhibit PMIG/6 appears to have been posted on the site on 13 July 2003 having been e-mailed by Dr Pelling on 12 July 2003 to fathers4justice@ yahoogroups.co.uk and fnf-chat@yahoogroups.com. It appears that Dr Pelling e-mailed exhibit PMIG/6 to these Yahoo! Groups and that it is likely that one of those members was able to place it on the Fathers for Life site.

9. I returned to the site which I have referred to above as exhibit PMIG/4, namely the open justice campaign on the Fathercare website, where I found a series of 5 links entitled "pelling pages”. I clicked on not and was taken to www.fathercare.org/pelling.htm which is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/7. Looking down that page, there is an image of the Contact journal. Clicking on that image, it opened an e-mail addressed to paulmw@ji-net.com (now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/8). The e-mail address is the same as that set out in Contact, as referred to above in para 3. The e-mail is a request to provide a copy of Contact. Also contained withinexhibit PMIG/7 I noticed a number of images on the left of the page suggesting that Contact ". . .is and has been freely available on the internet'' , and another quote, "Contact 5 journal published in Canada by The Children's Voice". This quote contains a link to the Fathercare site with an icon entitled "The Children's Voice'' (exhibit PMIG/9). Clicking on the icon provides a link - to a site called The Children's Voice (exhibit PMIG/10), which contains a link entitled "Contact 5 - East London Fathers Journal - UK Publication".

Clicking on that link produces a full version of the Contact journal containing both the Singer article and the Alexander judgment (exhibit PMIG/11). I recalled seeing the "Children's Voice'' icon in both exhibit PMIG/4 and exhibit PMIG/5. On returning to those pages, I found I was also able to link to the full articles produced as exhibit PMIG/4 in the some way as I had done so from exhibit PMIG/9. The same icon contained in exhibit PMIG/5 is not actually a link. Also in exhibit PMIG/7 is a link entitled "or Contact 5 journal via e-mail from Thailand'' which opens an e-mail addressed to Paul Warren (as seen at exhibit PMIG/8). As before, the e-mail is a request to provide a copy of Contact.

10. I then searched Google with the term "fathers4justice". There were 373 hits. Again, I concentrated only on the first 10 which are produced to me as PMIG/12. I selected Fathers4Justice (Wales) (homepage.ntlworld.com/f4

jswansea/). There was nothing on that page about Dr Pelling so I clicked on a link to the Fathers4Justice main website, conscious of the fact that Dr Pelling had e-mailed Fathers4Justice on 12 July 2003 (exhibit PMIG/6). There was nothing directly referring to Dr Pelting. However on clicking on the navigation "Join the movement'', now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/13, it is clear that Fathers4Justice run an internet forum. It is through this forum that Dr Pelling appears to have sent his e-mail of 12 July 2003 (exhibit PMIG/6) which contained a copy of Contact.

11. Returning to the search on "fathers4justice'' (exhibit PMIG/12), I clicked on the second item groups.yahoo.com/group/expectandnewdads/message/2530 - which opened up a web page containing an e-mail submitted to a Yahoo!

Group by Paul Warren entitled Attorney General and Internet. This is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/14.

12. This led me to do a search on Yahoo! Groups under the search - yahoo groups attorney general pelling. This produced 107 items. Copies of the first 10 items are now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/15. The first item was a repeat of exhibit PMIG/14. The second item, now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/16, is entitled "Attorney General writes to Dr Pelling". It is from the some Yahoo! Group, and is the preceding message to exhibit PMIG/14. It is a message sent to this Yahoo! Group, on August 17, by a Dave Mortimer forwarding an e-mail from Dr Pelting. Dr Pelling's e-mail was to a Fathers4Justice members only group (probably the one referred to above in paragraph 10). I infer that one of the members of the group forwarded it to the public Yahoo! Group which I had accessed from the Google search (PMIG/15).

13. The e-mail now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/16, contains extracts from Contact including the Singer article and provides a method of obtaining a Word version of Contact on request by providing an e-mail link to Paul Warren.

14. Finally, I carried out a search using the words "child access orders'' which led to 21 items. Included in the first 10 items (exhibit PMIG/17) were two references to the Fathers for Life items produced as exhibit PMIG/6 which includes a copy of Contact.

15. Accordingly it is clear that the Singer article and the Alexander judgment are widely available and easily accessible on the internet and/or by email through an address available both on the internet and given by Dr Pelling in the offending issue of Contact. .

SWORN this 5th December 2003, at the Royal Courts of Justice,

Strand, London WC2A 2LL before me

..."

 
top of page

Comment

The secretive English Family Court System continue to make headlines. The Court of Appeal in London on 19 January 2004 expressed concern about Family Courts separating children from their parents with flawed expert evidence in an estimated 5000 Child Protection cases.

From the 1980s onwards, English Family Courts subscribed to a model of therapeutic jurisprudence, in which 'the best interests of the child are paramount'.

Philip Jenkins, (Intimate Enemies: Moral Panics in Contemporary Great Britain, 1992), noted that reforms introduced in the name of child protection have involved sweeping attacks on traditional Anglo-American legal rights and protections. These rights include: the right to due process, the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, the right to be tried in public, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to 'equality of arms'.

Other protections, such as restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, the right to consult the expert of one's choice, and even the right to communicate in confidence with one's lawyers (legal professional privilege) also suffered. Such traditional legal protections were challenged by what Jenkins calls 'therapeutic values, the sense that neutral professionals were working in the best interests of the child and should not be hampered by outdated technicalities'.

Through a series of spectacular acts of civil disobedience, the British "Dads Army" Fathers 4 Justice has captured the imaginations of both the British public and the fathers' rights movement worldwide. Over the past 14 months these super heroes have used nonviolent resistance to highlight the way decent, tens of thousands loving fathers, and grandparents are driven out of the lives of the children who love them and need them.

At the same time, the Scottish Press and Scottish politicians have also gone to attack the lawless English Family courts which have violated Scottish children's rights. In one extreme case the English courts made orders in without having jurisdiction. The Scottish press also raised concerns about the fairness of the legal aid system in Britain, which denied the victim legal aid in both England and Scotland.

Faced with all this negative publicity, Senior Family Court judge, Wall went on a major publicity offensive to improve the low standing of the English Family Law System by releasing a statement that "Courts are not failing fathers", but only a few weeks later the newspapers carry reports of another judge publicly stating that the English Family Courts are failing fathers and children.

When a father (and witnesses) allege that a judge has abused a child in a public corridor of a court and when legal action is brought to bring the judge into court, the Department of Constitutional Affairs (formerly the LCD) decides to take action to suppress this legal action by moving to imprison Dr. Pelling, England's foremost critic of the systemic violations and abuse within the secretive English Family courts.

The Government Department for Constitutional Affairs which seeks to imprison Dr Pelling, is also in charge of the CAFCASS organisation, which supplies the courts with staff that are deemed to be "experts" in matters of child welfare.

However, parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee established in 2003, that CAFCASS was "seriously failing" children. (see article in The Sun ).

Shockingly, of their 'experts' who make recommendations in custody cases, only 1 in 7 receives any training to deal with children, which amounts to a single 2.5 day training course - less than a traffic warden's training!

And to make matters worse, CAFCASS carries out no research into what effect recommendations by their "experts" have on children.