Now here's a surprise. The Office for Judicial Complaints has dismissed the complaint by Simon Eades against the President of the Family Division Sir Mark Potter, for providing a character reference for Bruce Hyman. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice jointly "decided that the action of Sir Mark Potter in providing a reference, limited to his knowledge of Mr Hyman as a friend, cannot reasonably be considered to affect his suitability to hold judicial office". What will this do for the public's perception of the judiciary, and the profession as a whole?
Update: Simon Eades has made a complaint to the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, Sir John Brigstocke KCB, about the handling of his complaint.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
6 comments:
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see. That's how Hyman got a pupillage.
ReplyDeleteMakes you think, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteMr Eades is a serial litigant. Check out the record and explain how the law can stop such abuse of the system, but beware of an action shortly after.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could explain, and let us know who you are. You cannot deny that what happened to Mr Eades in the Hyman affair was utterly deplorable.
ReplyDeleteI've just come across this. The description of me as a "serial litigant" is so far from the truth that I can't help thinking that the author is none other than the estimable Hyman himself, or someone acting on his behalf. The tactics are familiar and point that way: throw mud, no matter what it is, in the expectation that some will stick. If it's Hyman then he must be admired for his gall in using 'abuse of the system'! The facts on my history as a litigant may be illuminating: I have made 2 or 3 Children Act applications, each supported by CAFCASS. I also made a small claim against Hyman, in an effort to recoup some (but only a small part) of the legal costs his crime occasioned me. I got a default judgment, but Hyman responded with an application to set that judgment aside, on the basis that he was improperly served (he was in prison). That set aside application was to be heard last week, six months after the default judgment was entered. I then applied to amend my claim, seeking full restitution of costs, along with damages. Hyman, of course, promptly withdrew his application. But having been forced to the groundwork I'll press on. Not because I'm a serial litigant, and not because I enjoy this (quite the opposite--court is the most awful place to be). But because I've had 4 years of relentless persecution and I'm just plain fed-up, not to mention disgusted. And by the way, as well as a litigant, I confess also to being a complainant. About Potter (who's actions still strike me as appallingly injudicious), about Hyman, and, indeed, about Hyman's predecessor as counsel for my ex wife. And that previous counsel has indeed been charged by the Bar Standards Board, in connection with groundless allegations made in front of a CAFCASS officer (more of the mud-slinging strategy). Family law has not done itself credit in my eyes. It might be helpful to the likes of Hyman to try to deflect attention from the substance of the grievance by slurs like "serial litigant". But it does disservice elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, Simon. You will note that I requested the commenter to explain and identify themselves, and that thus far they have done neither.
ReplyDelete