Homepage

Elvis

Family Courts Briefing

Benefits Who ... ?

"It is a dangerous myth that, merely by putting on a .... robe and taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking machine". David Pannick, 'Judges’, Open University Press, 1987

Click to Read

Here some quotes from the first Open Justice Campaign Leaflet (published May 1996)

David Pannick, Fellow of All Souls, Oxford. wrote in ‘Judges’:( OUP 1987) :

“No one who has had any dealings with the law would dispute that the personality and interests of the judge vitally affect the way in which he decides the case, as to style and as to substance. It is a dangerous myth that, merely by putting on a .... robe and taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking machine”.

“Judicial mavericks will always exist. But the high standards displayed by most judges ensure that the judiciary has little to fear from greater openness and accountability, it has everything to gain in terms of a more widespread understanding and appreciation of its distinction.

The unique virtues of the English judiciary would not be threatened if its members were brought out of the self-imposed seclusion and into the sunlight where their performance could be more effectively assessed. In addition, the greater publicity might reveal some room for improvement in one or two judges. The case for reform of judicial administration does not depend on the merit or demerit of the individual holders of office. Judicial administration is important because judges perform a vital and difficult function of government under the rule of law. Because judges are part of government, acting on our behalf, we are entitled to require them to abandon their priesthood and to present their activities for assessment by laymen. Any aspects of judicial administration which create barriers between the legal system and the community it serves need justification in a democratic society.”

" The Need for justice

Few myths have been so powerfully developed by the British Establishment than that we have 'the finest legal system in the world'. According to the myth, whenever a citizen's rights are infringed there exists an array of benevolent institutions, known as courts and tribunals, which will provide a remedy. They are said to be presided over by men (nearly always men) of un-questioned impartiality and independence. To help the citizen to have access to these arbiters of truth and right, there is a hierarchy of solicitors, barristers and Queen's Counsel, whose skill, learning and devotion to their clients is incomparable.

Belief in the myth is of inestimable value to those in authority. For if this superb system of justice turns out to be constantly declaring in favour of the government against the individual, the employer against the worker, the landlord against the tenant, it means that the exercise, and the abuse, of power can be legitimated and sanctified. Once 'the law' has been proclaimed, we must all bow down and obey. Those who do not revere the courts are undermining 'the rule of law'.

The comparison with religious devotion is apposite. The practitioners of law wear strange robes - black for the lower orders, black silk for the Queen's Counsel, purple or red for the judges - and even stranger headgear. Their buildings are designed to inspire awe and reverence. Their high priests bear majestic titles: the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor. To cross them, or even to pro-test about their decisions, may amount to 'contempt of court'. It is all designed to create an effect: respect, subservience, obedience.

Such is the myth. But what of the reality? Time after time after time, ordinary people who become involved with the courts find that they are oppressive, forbidding, incomprehensible and unjust. They find that judges and magistrates show a constant prejudice in favour of believing police officers rather than civilians. They find that laws which they thought were passed in favour of working people become twisted against them. They find that lawyers have neither the training, nor the understanding, nor the commitment, to be effective advocates of a poor person's case. They find that people without wealth or status stand little chance in court against the big corporate or governmental institution.

The contradiction between myth and reality is profoundly disillusioning. People have a deep desire for justice. Programs about the courts, both fictional and documentary, attract a strong interest - stimulated by the knowledge that anyone may be involved, as a member of a jury, in doing justice to others. Phrases are often used which express a feeling for justice, such as 'fair play', 'a fair crack of the whip', 'that's not cricket'. But side by side with a love of justice is a frequent distrust of lawyers and the courts. They have failed far too often to be true to those principles which a just legal system should embody."

Report on DAY TWO of the Pelling Trial by John Aston, PA News

Fathers Rights Campaigner Blasts Judges
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4112058

A Fathers 4 Justice campaigner today angrily refused to defend himself against moves by the Attorney General to punish him for revealing full details of a private county court judgment relating to contact with his son.

Dr Michael Pelling, of Forest Gate, east London, who stands accused of contempt of court, condemned the hearing as “unfair”.

With Fathers 4 Justice supporters clapping and cheering, he left the High Court in London after being refused permission to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in the case, which could involve a prison sentence.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, says the 55-year-old, a co-founder of the Campaign for Open Justice, named parties and published “sensitive details” about family proceedings in breach of strict privacy laws.

Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Pitchford, said full reasons for the decision not to allow cross-examination would be given when the court rules in the near future on whether or not Dr Pelling is guilty of contempt.

Dr Pelling wanted to cross-examine a barrister employed by the Attorney General’s office during the preparation of the case against him and an IT expert employed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the department charged with running the court systems in England and Wales.

Today, on the second day of the hearing, after an adjournment to consider his position, a furious Dr Pelling told the court: “I am not continuing with this case.”

He told the judges: “You may proceed in due course to give whatever judgment you wish to give.

“I am quite happy to appear for sentence. It is not necessary to send the tipstaff to arrest me.”

Lord Justice Laws advised Dr Pelling that it would be in his best interests to submit his defence and said the court had not yet come to any conclusion about whether or not he was guilty of contempt.

But Dr Pelling refused to remain in court and the judge announced that judgment would be given “in due course”.

Outside court he said: “The fundamental unfairness is that this is a criminal trial, but the court was not prepared to have the evidence against me read out and reported in open court and exhibits made available for public inspection.

“The last straw was that I am not even going to be allowed to cross examine my accusers.”

“The principle in criminal cases is that justice must be seen to be done, and that is a fundamental human right.”

Yesterday Dr Pelling accused Lord Justice Laws of showing bias against him in past rulings and called for him to be replaced by another judge.

He read out an article from satirical magazine Private Eye which was critical of the judge.

But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Pitchford, refused to step down and said he would give his reasons after hearing the full committal application.

Despite Dr Pelling’s objections, the judges ordered that details of the Bow County Court judgment at the centre of the alleged contempt must not be revealed in reports of today’s hearing.

Website and email addresses giving access to the judgment should also not be disclosed, pending any further order the court might make.

But the judges said there was no court order preventing the press and media now identifying Dr Pelling’s son, Alexander, now aged 14, who is a King’s scholar at Eton.

Andrew Caldecott QC, appearing for the Attorney General, argued that the case raises important issues of principle.

Privacy laws governing family cases – widely attacked by groups such as Fathers 4 Justice – must be obeyed, even though they are controversial, he said.

Dr Pelling published details from the county court ruling in Contact, a journal he edited for the organisation East London Fathers, in April 2003. His article was also published on the internet.

Dr Pelling contends that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, now enshrined in domestic law by the 1998 Human Rights Act, demands that judgments “shall be pronounced publicly”.

A comment in Contact on the decision to publish the judgment in full said secrecy laws were there to protect a “corrupt” judicial system.

It was also to prevent “the mother-custody default from being overthrown and to silence the voices of the growing ranks of embittered fathers”.