Friday, 23 October 2015

It was completely rejected on administrative and procedural grounds as it raised no matters of personal abusive or otherwise unacceptable behaviour on the part of the judge in question, and all other matters could only be challenged by legal appeal. 
See for the verbatim Court of Appeal judgement and some observations on it.

Copy of complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Others might like to do similarly. It can be submitted on-line from here:
Re: P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)
Before Mrs Justice Pauffley. (Case Number: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam)
Case No: ZC14C00315)
I wish to (publicly) make the following complaint(s). I am not a party to the proceedings although I have followed the case reasonably closely and as a concerned member of the public wish to formalise and record my objection in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffley assigned to this case, had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved, which she conspicuously failed to do.
The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-
(a) She demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings, in that she did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘McKenzie Friend’. Nor did she allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings. To allow the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any, breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.
(b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it and is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. Indeed it is quite contrary to the evidence! Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe, whilst the father had a track record of violence and dubious behaviour. Yet Judge Pauffley, incredibly concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, without supporting evidence, that the father and others should be exonerated whilst the mother was guilty of “torture”. Not only is this by every judicial standard, irrational, it is partisan and unwise.
(c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence. She may have undermined on-going investigations – we are told – into allegations of sexual assault. This cannot be acceptable.
(d) She demonstrated bias and poor judgement by effectively rubbishing and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable, whilst paradoxically accepting their so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable. Nor apparently was she prepared to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and best practice in matters of alleged child abuse.
(e) Finally her sweeping condemnation of the public as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ is unwarranted and a clear breach of her oath, not to demonstrate ill will to any.END.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.