Journal of the Plague Years

• The British Way, now: Guilty until proven Innocent (as a matter of course)...
• On Secret Trials.

The British Way, now: Guilty until proven Innocent (as a matter of course)...

01 May 2008 .

A retired (and not very well) teacher, a friend of mine, does a limited amount of tutoring to supplement her rather feeble pension. She has just had to pay 30 to renew her CRB disclosure (clearance to prove she hasn't committed any crimes, so that she can continue to work with children). 30 may not sound much to most people, but it's a fair chunk of what she gets in a week.

If society is concerned about threats to its children, that's understandable: but the concern is society's, and society should pay for such precautions as it chooses to take.

As it is, this woman, who is doing as much as she can to help children - as she has done throughout her career - is being made to bear the cost of society's concerns.

I'll go one step further... this woman is being asked to pay to prove herself innocent of crime: in other words, she is being assumed to be guilty (without any evidence to that effect) until she can prove herself innocent - at her own expense.

Just to flog the horse a bit: until recently, a presumption of innocence was fundamental to our understanding of what it meant to be English. Security checks may now be regarded as a necessary evil, so have them by all means - but surely at the expense of the people who want them.

A small thing, but a matter of principle. So old-fashioned, of course...

'Criminal Records Bureau' 'Innocent until proven guilty' 'who should pay?'

On Secret Trials.

23 February 2008 .

So long as there are infants and children who are at risk at home, the agencies who try to help them - no matter how dedicated and well trained - will occasionally make mistakes.

The Daily Mail has been up in arms about some of the more egregious errors which have come to light. Today they reported at length about Louise Mason and her two, later three, children.

1. In November 2002 Ms. Mason's 11-week-old daughter was removed by social workers and fostered. This was because, seven weeks earlier, the baby had been taken seriously ill with kidney trouble, and they suspected that swelling and bleeding around the kidney might have been caused by Ms. Mason mistreating her. Initial diagnosis had suggested cancer, and there had in fact been a wide range of opinion about the illness; but the suspicion finally grew that the injury was not accidental. Both children were taken from Ms. Mason, and in 2004 a formal application was made to take them into care.

2. It was claimed that she was a potential killer. A leading member of the social work team told her that she was not safe to be left alone in a room with any boy or girl. In the Autumn of 2004, she was brought to trial on two charges of GBH. She was acquitted, but the children remained in care.

3. A year after her acquittal, Ms. Mason became pregnant again. Despite her acquittal, social services told her that when the baby was born it would be taken from her; true to their word, they came to the hospital as she was trying to give the baby its first feed and took it.

4. With the help of a consultant who was saw the sick baby on the day it came into hospital back in 2002, Ms. Mason appealed against the family court's decisions. The testimony of independent paediatric experts who thought that bleeding and swelling around the kidney had occurred naturally resulted in the judges in the court of appeal quashing the family court rulings. Mr. Justice Gillon took the very unusual step of allowing the details of the case, and Ms. Mason's name, to be made public. He said that there had been a terrible miscarriage of justice.

5. Ms. Mason has had the oldest and youngest children returned to her; she had lost them for a significant time (5 years, in the case of the oldest). The middle child, the one who fell ill in the first place, has at five years old so bonded with her foster parents that it is unlikely she will go back to Ms. Mason.

Ms. Mason is just one among many mothers whose names have cropped up over the past few years. It's understandable that people rail against the perceived failings of the social services (mind you, they're just as quick to condemn if the services don't act and something awful happens).

But the real question is, can Right be done or Justice (or the best interests of all concerned) be served in secret courts? It's a question which applies in the family courts, but also those dealing with potential terrorists and, for all I know, in other areas as well. You can't even talk about the proceedings of the family courts to another member of your own family - you'll be done for contempt of court. It is almost impossible to test evidence - the doctors and social workers hold all the cards and, if they make mistakes (or fabricate notes, or lie, hints of all of which have been reported), no one usually finds out and there is no come-back.

Of course the need for 'justice to be seen' has to be moderated by the interests of vulnerable children, but it does seem that too many such children (and parents) are not being well served now - and it does seem to be because of the secrecy rather than despite it.

Frankly, secret proceedings are by their nature dubious. Perhaps the interests of children would be better served if there were a bit more light shed on the proceedings.

Especially, it must be said, in the light of government targets for numbers of adoptions (never mind the quality...), and the financial penalties for failing to meet those targets.

Note that none of these events would have been allowed to come to light but for Ms. Mason's trial for GBH. No doubt, in future, the services will be more careful simply to take the children - and not bring to trial someone who the next time might be a real psychopath.

'Louise Mason' 'social workers' 'family court'

Site Map