Press Release and summary of events at RCJ 2nd March2012

First a Press Release from Anne Greig.

Full PDF version available in Press Releases (top menu)

Picture: Sylvia Major, one of Hollie’s alleged abusers, the woman who was so ‘traumatized’ by Robert Green’s election leaflets that she complained to Grampian Police and gave evidence at his trial, the woman who confirmed under oath that she was never interviewed by police over Hollie’s allegations, yet was able to travel over 700 miles to London to take the seat immediately behind Hollie in the court to intimidate her. Hollie was visibly terrified when she saw her.

Synopsis of Court of Appeal Hearing – 2 March 2012

The 20 minute hearing in front of Lord Justice Thorpe on 27 October 2011 was adjourned to be listed for half a day in front of 3 Lord Justices.  The purpose of the adjournment was to enable the Appellant, Anne, to seek professional legal representation.

A solicitor and barrister were instructed, and they advised that it was necessary to reduce the original argument to a discrete point of law being;
Was it “necessary” for the Court to intervene in Hollie’s life?

Ian Wise QC submitted to the 3 Lord Justices that the evidence provided by Shropshire Council, in their application to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, which is available to protect vulnerable members of society, was scant and contradicted their argument that Hollie was being coerced using undue influence.

He asked for permission to appeal the decision of Mrs Justice Pauffley, to make Anne and Robert subject to Injunctions threatening prison if they took Hollie to further public meetings. Mrs Justice Pauffley also invited the Official Solicitor to represent Hollie, and to make enquiries into whether Hollie has capacity to litigate or consent to the campaign, by instructing a disputed psychiatrist.

Ian Wise QC advanced the case that Mrs Justice Pauffley didn’t put her mind to whether Hollie’s involvement in the campaign was the result of coercion and undue influence allowing her to invoke her inherent powers and Hollie being “vulnerable” was not enough to invoke the inherent jurisdiction due to the doctrine of necessity.

The question that the Court of Appeal was essentially asked was this:
“Does the evidence provided by Shropshire Council demonstrate that it is Hollie’s choice to demand justice through campaigning in which case the Court has no jurisdiction, or is the campaign exploiting Hollie, thereby invoking a NEED for the Court to invoke it’s inherent powers to protect?”

The Court of Appeal decided that the question was not one for the Court of Appeal to answer. They decided that the matter ought properly be tried in the lower court in secrecy. The Judges agreed that the Court had rightly drawn inferences that Hollie needed protection because her mother had not co-operated with Shropshire Council in their investigation into Hollie’s ability to consent to the campaign.

Anne had simply made the same submission as Ian Wise QC – There is no case to answer!

As a result of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s orders, and the refusal of the Court of Appeal to intervene, Anne is now guilty of exploiting Hollie until she is able to prove her innocence in a secret Court, where the evidence is controlled by the Local Authority and Official Solicitor and experts are not agreed.

Since the public Court of Appeal refuses to hear the evidence relating to whether it is Hollie’s choice to campaign, should we draw inferences about the secrecy ordered? Are the Courts protecting Hollie or are they protecting the Paedophiles who abused Hollie?

One very clear point made by Ian Wise QC when referring to the medical evidence exhibited to Shropshire Council’s statement was Hollie’s story is real and when Hollie is away from her mother she goes into a state of panic.

It was also made clear that Hollie is presumed to have capacity unless medical evidence proves otherwise. In this case the presumption of capacity still exists.

The Court of Protection invariably remove vulnerable people from their carers, on accusations that the state will take better care of them. What could frighten Hollie more than the prospect of being taken from her mother, into the care of state officials? Especially as Hollie has not fully recovered from when she was abused by social workers, police, a judge and others while living in Scotland.

The concern is that the secrecy of the lower court will allow Judges to make perverse “findings” based upon biased expert reports as often happens in the secret family courts which remove thousands of children from their families each year. The Court of Appeal decision means that it is perfectly lawful for anyone to be declared as not having capacity in the interim, on the allegation of a Local Authority, without any supporting evidence.

Once declared to not have capacity to litigate during proceedings forced upon you, you lose your legal identity which is taken over by the official solicitor. You can no longer choose your own representation, or complain, consent, withhold consent, request your records, withhold your records, make choices, and most importantly psychiatric assessment can be forced on you.

If the psychiatrist you never consented to reports that you do not have capacity to make decisions, your life belongs to the government and they will decide where you live, whether you are drugged, locked up for life, removed from your family – and all this happens in secrecy, with the threat of imprisonment if anyone dares tell the story of what happened in the secret court.

Of course Ian Wise QC could not imply that the Secret Court was a potentially corrupt Court and therefore did not address the Court of Appeal with the argument that Hollie’s case needs to be heard in open court in order to protect her from unjustified state intervention.

Hollie has had enough of secrets! Hollie demands justice.
.See the video reports from this event at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Video link in the menu.