Reseach - Environmental research Unit

This information has been provided by the Environmental Law Centre Research Unit and covers a small number of the cases where ELC research unit has been assisting. What comes out clear in these decisions is that unless the Public are present at the hearing and have sight of the written submissions, the evidence before the Court and hear the oral argument put to the Court; the Public will not be aware that often arguments given both orally and in writing – factual matters as well as legal arguments are avoided when the Court sees fit.

Furthermore on occasions, it is known that a litigant in person does not have all documents that the Judge or the legal representatives have. Also when it is pointed out to the Judge that files present to the court were not made available to the Judge by the represented side, often Judges gives excuses and dismisses these as irrelevant.

Decisions often in the High Court and regularly in the Court of Appeal are decided before the litigant presents his case in a document called a bench memorandum prepared by the case lawyer. This is regularly the basis of the decision of the Court based on the analysis of the case lawyer and the Courts refuse to disclose the document prior to hearing of the matter in breach of article 6.1 of the European Convention and natural justice.

These cases hopefully give a flavour of the work carried out by the Unit and as always we try to assist Justice in these matters yet regularly rectification of errors, unlawful acts or abuses rarely happens. Where matters of law lie you have more chance (no more than that of a successful Appeal), where matters lie within the discretion of the Judge – forget it – but remember unless you exhaust all domestic remedies your Application to the European Courts will not be accepted and if you don't Appeal the usual excuse of the Courts is that you had the right to Appeal and should have if you were dissatisfied with the decision.

Decisions on admissibility in the House of Lords again are made by an official contrary to Article 6 of HRA 1998 and case law in ECtHR.

We are also collecting dead cases – those where no remedy is available and live cases with prima facie evidence of wrongdoing/ abuses of procedure, law and Human Rights for preparation of submissions on the failures to protect the Public and most importantly our children. The recent cases of children being tortured and harmed make the matters all the more important despite the well-meaning and documented serious case reviews, child abuse enquiries such as the Cleveland and Climbie enquiries and Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council lessons are not being learnt.

Briefly of interest are :

B (a child) 20031 EWCA Civ 671 7 th April 2003

[2005] EWCA Civ 216 17 th February 2005 ‘parties are frequently less than frank with the court. Perjury proceedings, however, are rarely instituted or followed.'

Chauhan V Chauhan [2005] EWCA Civ 640 10 th May 2005 Second Appeal ancillary relief - This father obtained shared residence after numerous court hearings and subterfuge.

O Children [2005] EWCA Civ 573 28 th April 2005 Recusal of circuit judge

Re O'Connell and others [2005] EWCA Civ 759 28 th June 2005 Right to McKenzie friend;

D (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 1759 26 August 2005
High Court Judge criticised

D (Children) [2006] EWCA C[iv 625 23rd March, 2006 Human Rights damages to be assessed in the whole of the proceedings, and discovery.

B and O Children [2006] EWCA Civ 1199 25 th August 2006

Judicial indiferrence and Wall LJ maybe regarded as member of the biased and time serving – see last paragraph of;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1528820/Brief-encounters.html

D (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1346 20 th September 2006
Appeal against instruction of Professor Zeitlin seeking expert in PAS. (PAS as syndrome does not exist!)

D (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1657 29th November 2006
Refusal to disclose Bench memorandum. This matter is now before the European Court of Human Rights.

Bennett v Bennett 15 th January 2007
Bennett v Bennett 26th April 2007

D (Children) [2007] EWCA Civ 203 15 th February 2007
Father blaming.

N (Children and F-N a child) [2007] EWCA Civ 380 3 rd April 2007
Judicial woffle

Z (CHILDREN) [2007] EWCA Civ 1044 3 rd October 2007
Judges must obey the rules

Davies V CSA [ 2008] EWHC 334 (Admin) 5th March 2008
Failure of CSA to obey Court orders

Transcript of the hearing on Appeal in open Court. Please note the kind words towards ELC - click here for details

The Judgement on Appealing the decision of the refusal to force the CSA to obey the order - click here for details

Nelsen and White [2008] EWCA Civ 548 7 th May 2008
Mother's appeal against imprisonment for waving to her son and other banalities.

Please contrast the Judgement above with the Judgement in the case of Re B we also assisted with of 28 th May 2004 [2004] EWCA Civ 681

Further note that the by now infamous England V Scotland and the turf war mentioned has now ended with the Scottish courts overturning the English Jurisdiction and the actions of LJ Wall/ Arden/ Potter/ Thorpe and Mr. Justice McFarlane/ Sumner etc.

Judgement of the Court of Session dated 9 th September 2008

Z County Council- and -TS-and-DS and ES-and-A (by his Children's Guardian) [2008] EWHC 1773 (Fam)
Anonymity and Publishing social worker's name, name of Local Authority and the mother's face.

SW and KSW (Children) 2009 Procedure care v criminal proceedings and whether children should be cross examined.

Z children [2008] EWCA October 2 nd 2008 Judgement awaited – astonishing case children left in sole care of vengeful parent with care and innocent father refused even Parental responsibility or supervised contact and any further steps to be taken.