Sitting at Maidstone
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a Sec 9 Deputy High Court Judge
|SARA JAYNE ROOT|
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370
The Respondent appeared in person with a McKenzie friend
Crown Copyright ©
'Upon the court making an interim injunction pursuant to Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 and Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 restraining the mother from publishing information in relation to any proceedings, to last until conclusion of the hearing on 2 March 2017, such injunction having been made as a holding position without prejudice to any submission that the mother might make that the injunction is neither warranted nor necessary'.
Then the order recites that:
'Upon the court having delivered a short judgment that there would be reporting restrictions in relation to this hearing on the basis that the court will deliver a summary of its decision at the conclusion of the hearing which may be published in accordance with paragraph 13 of the Practice Direction of 26 March 2015'.
Then the relevant part of the order is paragraph one: 'No person shall publish any information or details in relation to this hearing on the basis that the court will deliver a summary of its decision which may be published at the conclusion of the hearing on 2 March 2017'.
'Notification of my public committal proceedings which took place yesterday, 12 December, at Maidstone County Court before Circuit Judge Richard Polden, sitting in his capacity as a Deputy High Court Judge, thus keeping the case within the inner circle to eliminate the possibility of an actual hearing taking place at the Royal Courts of Justice. First, I was concerned to note that the court failed to show public notice of the imminent criminal proceedings'.
She continued: 'I make it clear I am represented by a very accomplished female barrister', and then she summarises the outcome of the hearing and refers to the fact that she had promised to the court that, by four o'clock the following day, she would remove the Facebook entries, and then she alleges: 'In essence, I am being blackmailed to withdraw my almost seven-year campaign to ensure that this miscarriage of justice is firmly set in stone in a public domain', and adds:
'On further consideration, I now understand that the Judge in essence tried to illegally force me into admitting liability by removing my story for alleged contempt of court before I had been found guilty, which may or may not happen on 2 March. That was outrageous', and did everyone not agree?
'Notification of my impending hearing for alleged breach of my injunction, gagging order taken against me by Medway Council in 2011 to keep their illegal witch-hunt to destroy my family a secret, sanctioned by His Honour Judge Richard Polden, it being the Administration of Justice Act Section 12 and the Children Act 1989. The alleged punishment is a custodial sentence with a maximum of two years in prison…'
She then quotes from the skeleton argument on behalf of Medway Council prepared by their barrister, Mr Elliott.
'On further consideration……', so it is clear that she has had time before she made that post to consider what had taken place at the court hearing on 12 December. In my judgment, the reality of the situation is that she changed her mind very soon after the hearing and she decided that she was not going to comply with the terms of the undertaking. It is quite clear that in the post that she sent on 13 December, she was saying, 'In essence, I am being blackmailed', and, 'The Judge in essence tried to illegally force me into admitting liability'. As the Judge, I did no such thing and I explained that no findings had been made by the court at that stage but that an undertaking was an appropriate way in dealing with the position until we could come back to court on 2 March.
'Unfortunately I have very little recollection of the last hearing as I unfortunately had stayed with my older daughter the night before in preparation for the hearing, and had forgotten to take all of my medication with me, so sadly, I was not able to mentally function as I should be'.
In my judgment, if that had been a true explanation, then she would have notified the court of that position prior to 1 March. It is noteworthy that there was no application for an adjournment on her behalf by her counsel on 12 December, so her counsel was certainly satisfied that she was able to take part in the hearing and she did indeed give instructions to her counsel.