Biased judge failed to protect Madeleine's interests
I had every reason to be concerned when I heard that the ambulance chasing International Family Law Group had contacted the McCanns in Praia da Luz to offer their services.
At the recent High Court hearing, Tim Scott, QC, instructed by the International Family Law Group, who represented the McCanns, played the retreat on his bugle eloquently as the McCann team got routed in the face of a pincer movement by Leicestershire Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
The hearing can be read here.
Had the McCanns not capitulated, the McCanns, the court, the public, and the world's media would have been told why the police do not give such information to suspects in an ongoing investigation. Leicestershire Police are involved in relation to a possible child's death, child neglect and/or child abandonment, and fraud. SOCA is only interested in the fraud aspect. Neither the Leicestershire Police nor SOCA are interested in the McCanns abduction story.
I would have laughed Tim Scott, QC, out of court as soon as he mentioned "As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007". Had Mrs Justice Hogg not been biased, I would have stood up and asked "What child abduction?". And asked, "Do you intend providing any proof of this?". Had Mrs Justice Hogg not been biased, she would have stopped him in his tracks and told him to stick to the facts. There is no evidence of any child abduction in this case. And this is precisely why the McCanns were on a sticky wicket. The law enforcement agencies do have evidence that the McCanns lied about a fake break-in. Perhaps, Mrs Justice Hogg would have changed her opinion of the McCanns and what they claimed happened if the law enforcement agencies had provided the files for her scrutiny?
Of course there should be an appeal. You see, all the other parties there had representation. The one person who did not have any representation was Madeleine Beth McCann. Her interests were supposed to be looked after by Mrs Justice Hogg. She failed in that duty towards Madeleine. She leaned in favour of the McCanns, to the extent that she broke the law herself. The very people who are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, Mrs Justice Hogg heaped praise upon them. Sadly, Madeleine was let down again. First by her parents, and then by the person entrusted to care for her interests when she was made a ward of court, Mrs Justice Hogg.
Neither the McCanns nor Clarence Mitchell speak for Madeleine. The McCanns are only interested in saving their own skins. Clarence Mitchell only represents the McCanns because they are paying him to do so. He is grateful for the job because he was forced to resign from the government Media Monitoring Unit, when he was caught out by the PJ tipping the McCanns off about the electronic surveillance. In spite of Clarence Mitchell's spin, claiming the court hearing as a victory over the 81 pieces of information supplied by the police, it was the other 11,000 pieces which would have proved the downfall of the McCanns had just some of them been produced in court. This is what frightened the McCanns off.
What needs to happen now is for Madeleine to get proper representation in court. Before an unbiased judge.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
6 comments:
It was not the Portuguese police that left Madeleine alone to go to the restaurant...
Miguel: Of course it wasn't, it was the McCanns who neglected the children.
Is it possible to take action against hogg?
Jo: The hearing can be challenged at the Court of Appeal. It can be shown that she displayed bias. I think it is worth doing just to get it on the record that the so-called abduction is not a fact.
I'veheard Justice Hogg has been reported to The Bar.
Is this true and what exactly does this mean?
tezza: If she is a practicing barrister she can be reported to the Bar for misconduct.
However, I fear it will be just a rumour because as a judge the proper course would be to report her to the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw.
Even this is unlikely. In a case like this, any question of her conduct can be done by taking the case to the Court of Appeal. Which is what I intend doing.
Post a Comment