Simon Clayton Landmark Ruling - Appeal Court
 |
||
| Simon Clayton- Press Release – June
27, 2006 Landmark Ruling - Appeal Court Children's right to anonymity ended for family courts Sources: Times UK Simon Clayton- Press Release Case: Clayton v Clayton. Court of Appeal. Case currently entitled “C (A Child)” but to be known as “Clayton v Clayton”. Judgement given By Sir Mark Potter (President of family courts), Lord Justice Wall, and Lady justice Arden on 27 June 06. Case no B4/2005/2321 & 2322 An appeal against a far reaching Injunction forbidding all mention by me of my child in public following the conclusion of our Child residence case. I am relatively pleased with the Court of Appeal’s judgment today. My legal advice is that it is a “landmark” judgement and precedent, and it comes after a great deal of excruciating work by me and others over a long period. I “dedicate” the victory to a colleague at Families Need Fathers, Ian Mackay, who was my lay legal advisor and without whom I would never have launched this appeal, but who died the week before we went to the Appeal Court in February. Today’s victory would have meant a tremendous amount to him. And thanks to my new legal team who took over at too short notice. Since the custody dispute between my ex-wife and me concerning our daughter, Estelle, known to all as “Esti”, was amicably settled a year ago, I have wanted to be able to discuss my experiences of the family court system publicly (and responsibly), having invitations from the media to do so. But like all who have encountered the Family Courts I was barred from doing so behind a raft of extremely confusing legal prohibition with severe penalties including long prison terms. This, even when the settlement in our case was heralded in (soon to be) dusty legal tomes as the perfect ending - revolutionary in its positive impact in heralding a better way of settling custody disputes, and commended by a High Court Judge as a “useful template”, being, as he said, a case that should have wider publicity so that others can be usefully referred to the excellent voluntary written agreement which we finally drew up. This prohibition was also when in our case there was already a huge amount of material already out in the public domain in our names, and forever stored on the internet, following earlier matters that hit the news. Today the Court of Appeal has allowed me to speak freely. It found that the High Court judge who prevented me from openly discussing the outcome was wrong, and that he failed to give sufficient weight to my right to contribute to the important and very topical debate about what happens within the family court system. Up to now the family courts have always proceeded on the basis that even after a case involving children has finished, even an ordinary custody dispute like ours – how an earlier judge presiding on the case described it, that case cannot be reported or even discussed. The Court of Appeal has today made it clear that this is not correct. Once cases involving children are over, they can be discussed. The evidence in the case cannot be reported, but the outcome, background facts and (importantly) the identity of the participants can be made public. The Court of Appeal also said that there will be cases where the court may feel it is necessary in the interests of the child to restrict publicity even after a case has ended, but such restrictions must be justified and are no longer automatic. I see the Court of Appeal’s judgment as a big step forward. Many believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from my own case which I describe on my website (address below). Until today I was not allowed to publish this information. I, and my colleagues at Families Need Fathers and Fathers4justice (not dead yet), campaign for complete and automatic openness in the Family Courts, unless, as in the criminal courts, particularly distressing factors suggest to a judge anonymity needs to be specifically ordered. It is our belief that there must be much more openness about what goes on in the family courts. These courts can, and frequently do, permanently remove children from their parents and regularly send people to jail. Yet their decisions and proceedings take place behind completely sealed doors and receive virtually no coverage in the media, and because of fear of legal action journalists usually feel they cannot investigate cases. Justice Munby, a leading and outspoken family court judge, recently referred to the removal of children as surely the most terrible power the state may wield over a citizen once capital punishment was abolished. I would add that he forgot to mention the effect is the same upon parents in ordinary custody disputes who’s access to children is prevented or severely restricted, which is still happening daily throughout the land. And when this power is wielded in almost compete secrecy, as it has been for around 70 years until today, there is clearly a fundamental flaw the functioning of democracy. Others have recently written on this matter at length in the media. This is partly because of the rules restricting publicity of such cases. But it also results from an incorrect assumption too frequently made by journalists that the family courts are entirely off limits. To an extent (far too great an extent) this is correct, but the Court of Appeal has made clear today there will be many cases which the press can report and openly discuss. My wish is that, as a result of today’s judgment, the media takes a more active interest in the cases which so profoundly affect the lives of parents and children. CONTINUES……… SUPPLEMENTARY: NOTES: Details, copy of judgement, etc., will be on my website by 28th June – the website is currently very out of date. Googling “Simon Clayton” and “Esti” may find other material – but much of which is completely out of date or absolute rubbish – part of this case today was about the fact that much was written and broadcast in 2003 about me and I effectively had no “right of reply” due the constraints upon me until today. My primary ongoing objective, certainly that which I hope will have the most lasting benefit to the wider public, is to publicise our unique and “truly remarkable”, as a judge has said, (written) “SHARED PARENTING AGREEMENT” . This is written up in a Public Judgement called “re: z”, High Court, Cardiff, 26th July 05/ 11 Aug 05. It contains important new principles and most interestingly also for the first time in the British Courts, sets out the “rights” of our child, Esti, in a “Bill of Rights” format, which I copied from a write up on a very new trend in American Courts. And most important of all, when many custody dispute conclusions fail to really help the parents move forward quickly our settlement immediately helped cause great improvement for all. This document is available by email now and on the website in a few days. I am immensely proud of it, as is Esti who knows all the details of our past, and it can now be published in our names. An initial adaptation of our agreement is to be found at: Shared Parenting Agreement A feature of the Appeal Court case, sadly not taken up by the judges today in spite of representation on it, but nevertheless very real and a matter I wish to publicise, was that I was very wrongly, for over a year, denied Legal Aid to launch this case. I was penniless and thus qualified financially, but the Legal Services Commission effectively gagged me by refusing me legal aid. Only by fumbling forward as Litigant in Person for a long time and then to my great shock being granted leave to Appeal by Lord justice Wall, in December 05, did I then get legal aid at the last minute. The LSC acted like a court when not a court – hearing my representation to obtain legal aid at a tribunal in early 2005 and deciding this appeal had “no merit”. I am pursuing compensation from them – a long and tortuous path. It is completely unreported but should be that Citizens are often denied proper legal redress, particularly in Family Courts, by this establishment body that at times obstructs proper democratic process and certainly is often quite Kafkaesque in the way it functions. A report of the leave to appeal is at: C (A Child) [2005] EWCA Civ 1705 (08 December 2005) Matt O’Connor of F4J hopes the floodgates will open after this case – more openness will quickly follow and once the public hear more of the reality of the family courts, public distaste will force more radical reform. We believe the ideas so far muted on reform by ministers, especially in respect of Court Openness, are entirely inadequate and still potentially far too complicated to protect democracy and ensure modern fair outcomes in custody cases. They fail to understand also that as soon as the public and media can have completely free access to the Family Courts then the perpetrators of wrong actions in these courts – be they officers of the courts, lawyers, parties to cases (making false allegations), or anyone else, will be far more likely to temper their behaviour and words, and thus the problems that beset a system that no one seems to be happy with – especially almost all the parents who ever go to family court, will more quickly evaporate. Contact: Simon Clayton email: simonclayton@post.com TEL: 079 7979 7190 |
||
|
Go Back |
||
