Tags

,

This is the Practice Guidance that shows that I should NOT have been kicked out of Lincolnshire County Court. Why did HHJ Swindells QC do it? Because she CAN!

Do note para 8:

When considering whether to circumscribe the right to assistance or refuse a MF permission to attend the right to a fair trial is engaged. The matter should be considered carefully. The litigant should be given a reasonable opportunity to argue the point. The proposed MF should not be excluded from that hearing and should normally be allowed to help the litigant.

para 9:

Where proceedings are in closed court, i.e. the hearing is in chambers, is in private, or the proceedings relate to a child, the litigant is required to justify the MF’s presence in court. The presumption in favour of permitting a MF to attend
such hearings, and thereby enable litigants to exercise the right to assistance, is a strong one.

and para 12 v)

12) The following factors should not be taken to justify the court refusing to permit a litigant receiving such assistance:

(v) The proposed MF belongs to an organisation that promotes a particular cause;

Our particular cause is: “voluntary public interest advocacy – assisting litigants in person“…

As predictable, the Pedros ‘lost’ their 2 youngest kids for adoption and the 3 older ones are to be split up between ‘carers’ – in the ‘best interest of the children’.

WATCH THIS SPACE for further developments!

Advertisements