TheKeyAuthor's Blog - Posts Tagged "rcj"
Evidence Destroyed
In June 2008, I applied for a transcript of the hearing presided over by Judge M at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ). Judge M, an "acquaintance" of my MP (elected representative), was still under investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC, a Ministry of Justice office, were in possession of a transcript from an earlier hearing, presided over by Judge F who was also under investigation, which exposed the existence of a secret document: the government knew these transcripts were very damaging.
Unlike previous RCJ transcriptions, this new process was troublesome from the start. First, the analog tape sent to the transcription company did not have my case on it -- the transcription company confirmed that this had never occurred before. The next week, another analog tape was sent, but the recording was damaged and was of such poor quality that it could not be used. When the transcription company informed the RCJ's Court Recording and Transcription Unit (CRATU), they promised to send a copy of the digital backup. A week later, the CRATU manager phoned me directly because they couldn't find a digital backup, none existed.
However, the manager himself had sent me a digital copy of the recording on Compact Disc (CD) in February 2007- - I had the CD all the time but needed a written & certified transcript, and that is why I applied in June 2008. Without my CD, the recording of that hearing would have been lost forever. How convenient that would have been.
This is a recording of that phone conversation on 7th July 2008 with the CRATU manager. The recording is not the best in quality, but you can tell that we are discussing the loss of the digital backup and the manager has no idea how it could have happened. The following extract from my book covers the exchange:
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
Unlike previous RCJ transcriptions, this new process was troublesome from the start. First, the analog tape sent to the transcription company did not have my case on it -- the transcription company confirmed that this had never occurred before. The next week, another analog tape was sent, but the recording was damaged and was of such poor quality that it could not be used. When the transcription company informed the RCJ's Court Recording and Transcription Unit (CRATU), they promised to send a copy of the digital backup. A week later, the CRATU manager phoned me directly because they couldn't find a digital backup, none existed.
However, the manager himself had sent me a digital copy of the recording on Compact Disc (CD) in February 2007- - I had the CD all the time but needed a written & certified transcript, and that is why I applied in June 2008. Without my CD, the recording of that hearing would have been lost forever. How convenient that would have been.
This is a recording of that phone conversation on 7th July 2008 with the CRATU manager. The recording is not the best in quality, but you can tell that we are discussing the loss of the digital backup and the manager has no idea how it could have happened. The following extract from my book covers the exchange:
A few minutes later, the phone rang. It was [the manager]. He sounded agitated, confused even.
He said, “There is no digital recording of the hearing. In fact, I can't find any recording for the whole day.” I was stunned. That simply couldn't be.
He continued, “I can't understand how you can have in your possession a crystal clear digital recording of the hearing on compact disc, yet the analogue tape recording is so poor as to be unusable.”
He explained, “...it goes through a machine then into the digital machine, so in theory, there should be no difference whatsoever.”
I agreed and said, “That's right.”
He continued, “So this is what makes it even more strange. Have you listened to it? Is it definitely your case on that day?”
Thinking he meant the analogue tape, I said, “I haven't listened to it.” Then realising he meant my own CD recording, I said, “But the recording I've got? Yes, that is definitely mine. I was there, it definitely is that one.”
[He] was clearly bewildered at what had happened. He spoke very loudly and quickly, almost rambling at times. He said, “Audio quality on a CD will be a little bit better than on a tape, but not to the extent that everyone keeps saying that it was so poor you can't transcribe, because the one you got is crystal clear. It wouldn't be that different. Same line for recording, same wireless, same cables, same microphone, same everything. The only difference is CD is a little bit better quality. But nothing near the difference here. This is just what I can't understand.”
I agreed and said, “I know. Modern technology for recordings has come on leaps and bounds.”
He went on to describe the digital and analogue systems again, with the same conclusion that there should not be much difference between them. He asked, “I would like to see that CD, so do you want to send it to me, or...”
I said, “Leave that with me at the moment because that is quite an interesting situation as err...because I know the full reasons for various things that are going on with regard to that case. I think that the digital recording has disappeared from the Royal Courts of Justice for that day, which is quite unbelievable. And the analogue tape is unusable, which is in itself, as you have just said, also extremely strange.”
He said, “Well, I haven't listened to the analogue master tape to be honest to you, I want to see what the quality is like..., as far as the digital recording goes it cannot be deleted. There is no way it can be. This is why it is very weird how you have got it from us.”
I asked, “So how on earth can I have a digital recording then?”
“I don't know. Especially as you say, I sent it to you.”
“You did. I recognise your name because I saw your name on the emails.”
He later told me he didn't normally handle customer requests because he was made the manager of the department in July 2007, five months after he sent me the recording. He signed off by saying he wanted to check the quality of the analogue tape and he would get back to me later.
Well, that was quite a phone call. His explanation of the recording hardware left no doubt that there shouldn't be much difference in quality between the digital and analogue recordings. As both recording systems used the same audio source, he couldn't understand why I had a crystal clear recording, yet the analogue one was unusable.
Even more intriguing was his statements that there were no digital recordings on the backup system for the entire day and it wasn't possible to delete them. Here was the manager of the facility, the man who sent me the CD containing the digital recording of Judge M's hearing, completely lost for an explanation as to what happened to the recordings and how on earth I had one. Given his reaction, it was fair to say such an event had never happened before.
I was truly shocked at this. I had a feeling it was coming, but even so, when it did, I couldn't believe it. Yet, there was absolutely no doubt about it. Someone had deliberately tampered with the recordings so that no one could ever hear what was said in that courtroom. Whoever was behind it would never have reckoned that I had a digital recording of the hearing at home. Members of the public were not supposed to get such recordings. That was made very clear by Judge F's response to my request to get one.
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
Secret Evidence
On August 9th 2006, Judge F presided over a summons hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ), the UK High Court. Being a family court, the hearing was in secret. Blissfully unaware of the existence of this hearing, I was neither present nor represented.
The barrister was experienced in these Hague Convention on Child Abduction cases. Although he knew even the key allegation statement was false and the case had no merit -- he surely knew it was a blatant hoax -- he presented the case to the judge. He also knew the granting of the summons would provide an opportunity for the UK legal profession to correct an earlier UK judicial mistake, one that the court documents clearly displayed.
For some reason, the barrister handed up a document to Judge F that wasn't in the court bundle. During the judge's summing up, it was clear the contents of that document dominated her thoughts. The summons was granted. And so began the nightmare that led to my daughter being traded as payment for the judicial mistake -- even though they knew "removing a parent from a child was the ultimate penalty a State can do to a citizen," they still did it.
In 2007, I initiated a number of investigations with a host of legal regulatory bodies against solicitors, barristers and judges. A complaint against a firm of solicitors was not upheld in part due to a letter that I'd never seen before. When I called the investigator, she gave the impression it had been used at the summons hearing. I wrote to Judge F asking for this missing letter, but its existence was not disclosed.
My complaints against the judges were dismissed but I persisted and appealed to the Judicial Ombudsman. Months later, they finally asked the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to do an investigation. Judge F was one of those to be investigated, as was Judge M who presided over the subsequent hearing at the RCJ. Later in the year, I requested a transcript of the summons hearing from the RCJ. It duly arrived, via a transcription firm, without a hitch. That transcript exposed the existence of the secret document. I wrote to Judge F asking for it to be handed over. The reply was not what I expected: "We do not have a copy of the 'summary of background/chronology' that was handed up in court on 9th August. This is not a document that we would have kept".
As the three main documents in the official court bundle were in effect all 'summary of background/chronology', why did the barrister feel he needed to hand up a fourth and why was this one not kept when such documents evidently were? And why did the judge not disclose the existence of the document when I explicitly asked a few months earlier?
There are rules that govern the use of secret evidence in courts and they apply when national security is a concern. As this book extract clearly shows, the issue of open (not secret) evidence is fundamental to the rule of law (due process in US) -- Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is applicable to both civil and criminal cases:
I wrote to the OJC explaining Judge F had used secret evidence in court and had not disclosed it when asked. I then requested the transcript of Judge M's hearing at the RCJ because I realised they were so damning. Obviously I wasn't alone in that assessment because the hearing records were destroyed.
Ultimately, the OJC didn't uphold my complaint against the judges. However, one of the investigators did contact Scotland Yard's Special Crime Directorate on my behalf. The SCD6 police officer lied as to why they wouldn't investigate.
Not a single person has been punished let alone charged in connection with my daughter's illegal removal from the UK. The entire matter has been comprehensively covered up; a total media block is still in place.
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
The barrister was experienced in these Hague Convention on Child Abduction cases. Although he knew even the key allegation statement was false and the case had no merit -- he surely knew it was a blatant hoax -- he presented the case to the judge. He also knew the granting of the summons would provide an opportunity for the UK legal profession to correct an earlier UK judicial mistake, one that the court documents clearly displayed.
For some reason, the barrister handed up a document to Judge F that wasn't in the court bundle. During the judge's summing up, it was clear the contents of that document dominated her thoughts. The summons was granted. And so began the nightmare that led to my daughter being traded as payment for the judicial mistake -- even though they knew "removing a parent from a child was the ultimate penalty a State can do to a citizen," they still did it.
In 2007, I initiated a number of investigations with a host of legal regulatory bodies against solicitors, barristers and judges. A complaint against a firm of solicitors was not upheld in part due to a letter that I'd never seen before. When I called the investigator, she gave the impression it had been used at the summons hearing. I wrote to Judge F asking for this missing letter, but its existence was not disclosed.
My complaints against the judges were dismissed but I persisted and appealed to the Judicial Ombudsman. Months later, they finally asked the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to do an investigation. Judge F was one of those to be investigated, as was Judge M who presided over the subsequent hearing at the RCJ. Later in the year, I requested a transcript of the summons hearing from the RCJ. It duly arrived, via a transcription firm, without a hitch. That transcript exposed the existence of the secret document. I wrote to Judge F asking for it to be handed over. The reply was not what I expected: "We do not have a copy of the 'summary of background/chronology' that was handed up in court on 9th August. This is not a document that we would have kept".
As the three main documents in the official court bundle were in effect all 'summary of background/chronology', why did the barrister feel he needed to hand up a fourth and why was this one not kept when such documents evidently were? And why did the judge not disclose the existence of the document when I explicitly asked a few months earlier?
There are rules that govern the use of secret evidence in courts and they apply when national security is a concern. As this book extract clearly shows, the issue of open (not secret) evidence is fundamental to the rule of law (due process in US) -- Article 6 of the Human Rights Act is applicable to both civil and criminal cases:
On Tuesday 4 May [2010], the British Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that allowed the British government to use secret evidence to defend itself in a civil law case. This became a major story in the Press and the high court judges' strong remarks were well publicised. The Court of Appeal said it would “take a stand” against secrecy that would undermine the “most fundamental principles of common law.” In a strongly-worded ruling, the Master of the Rolls (second most senior judge), Lord Neuberger, said:
In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by a court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it.
I wrote to the OJC explaining Judge F had used secret evidence in court and had not disclosed it when asked. I then requested the transcript of Judge M's hearing at the RCJ because I realised they were so damning. Obviously I wasn't alone in that assessment because the hearing records were destroyed.
Ultimately, the OJC didn't uphold my complaint against the judges. However, one of the investigators did contact Scotland Yard's Special Crime Directorate on my behalf. The SCD6 police officer lied as to why they wouldn't investigate.
Not a single person has been punished let alone charged in connection with my daughter's illegal removal from the UK. The entire matter has been comprehensively covered up; a total media block is still in place.
More information can be found at my campaign site. Free eBook.
