Gagged Dad has posted the following comment on
I would like to thank the 21 who wrote to the judge and the 17 who attended the hearing, of whom four or more, three of them journalists, addressed the court. I would like especially to thank Stephen Green for his coverage before the hearing, in Christian Voice.
The hearing was bedevilled by the following problem: That the application for a private hearing was founded upon (I say) a false premiss, that my case was an attempt to have reconsidered family court proceedings that were properly held in private, in which the Defendant had played an expert witness role. I have not impugned in this case the outcome in the family court. It was said that the Defendant could not defend my claim without referring to those other matters, which ought not to be aired in public. The judge appeared to me to be taken in by this protestation, and to have insinuated that there was far more to this case than John Allman had brought to public attention.
I was therefore not allowed to refer to the facts that I am pleading, which are not connected with the former family court proceedings. I was prevented from thus refuting the Defendant’s false premiss. This restriction upon my ability to argue my case for a public trial was imposed because of the presence of the public at the hearing. I consider that restriction to have been unnecessary and unfair. I have made an appeal to the High Court, asking for the judgments and order of HHJ Cotter to be set aside, which include an order for any eventual trial to be held in private. The actual trial in December has been vacated, and is now, if ever needed, likely to be in the new year.
Incidental to my appeal, I have applied for transcripts of HHJ Cotter’s oral judgments, in order to become able to perfect my provisional appeal grounds. I have also applied for strike-out of the Defence and summary judgment. I have applied for members of the press and public to have an extension of the time allowed for them to appeal, separately from my appeal, until after a transcript of the judgments has been made available.
My appeal and the hearing of my applications incidental to the appeal will all be held in public. It therefore follows that this is not a case that has irretrievably disappeared behind closed doors. There will be at least one further public hearing, and possibly one in which the High Court will make its own fresh decision, which I hope will be different from that of HHJ Cotter in the county court.