By Amanda Hill and Celia Kitzinger, 15th October 2025
By the point at which we observed the Court of Appeal hearing on 9th September 2025 (Amanda in person, Celia remotely), the outcome felt like a foregone conclusion. It seemed very likely that Luba Macpherson[1] would be sent to prison, immediately. And that’s what happened. It was followed 10 days later by another hearing (in Newcastle) that was adjourned.
In this blog post we report on the case as follows:
1. Summary of the case so far
2. The Court of Appeal hearing on 9th September 2025
3. Bearing witness in person to the Court of Appeal hearing
4. Hearing on 19th September 2025 before DJ Temple in Newcastle
1. Summary of the case so far (Celia and Amanda)
Luba’s daughter (FP) lives in a care home and has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Luba believes she is being abused and is being given medication that is making her symptoms worse. She has regularly communicated her views on these matters to her daughter, with the result that the court has authorised various forms of contact restrictions (and at times a total ban on contact). More detail is available in a published judgment (SCC v FP and others [2022] EWCOP 30) and in a previous blog about this case: An ‘impasse’ on face-to-face contact between mother and daughter.
From a fairly early point in the proceedings Luba has conducted a public social media campaign to (as she sees it) get justice for her daughter: this includes video footage and audio-recordings of her conversations with daughter, sometimes with a member of the care home staff present. A Court of Protection judge, Poole J, made an injunction prohibiting Luba from posting material about FP on the internet but Luba continued to do so, because she believes that the court is engaged in a cover-up.
In January 2023, Poole J found Luba in contempt of court for having breached his injunctions by posting material about her daughter online. The judge imposed a suspended 28-day sentence (judgment here [2023] EWCOP 3). We’ve also blogged about it: “A committal hearing to send P’s mother to prison”). Luba appealed against this suspended sentence, but her appeal was dismissed (4th May 2023). She continued to post videos and other material about her daughter.
The local authority issued fresh committal proceedings – although by now Luba had relocated to France, where she was outside the jurisdiction of the court. Since Luba declined to return to the UK for the contempt hearing, the judge made a warrant for her arrest. At a hearing on 22nd January 2024 (which Luba attended remotely from France), Poole J imposed an immediate 3-month sentence for the new breaches, plus the 28-day sentence from January 2023, making a total of 4 months of imprisonment. We blogged about that hearing: “Warrant for arrest of P’s mother”.
Luba filed her application to appeal that four-month prison sentence on 21st March 2024, in the Court of Appeal, but it took a long time before her appeal was heard. This is because first there was a delay in securing legal aid, and then a delay due to a failed attempt to secure a transcript of the committal hearing, and finally the appeal stalled altogether due to Luba’s own legal team having raised concerns that their client lacked capacity to litigate. This would mean that the prison sentence could not be imposed.
The case was referred back from the Court of Appeal to the Court of Protection – where it was heard by the Vice President (Mrs Justice Theis) who found that Luba does have capacity to litigate the proceedings. We blogged about the litigation capacity issues here: Litigation Capacity, Luba Macpherson and the court’s engagement with a ‘persistent’ litigant and here Strongly held beliefs do not equate to lack of litigation capacity: Judgment concerning Luba Macpherson’s appeal against committal to prison, and there is a published judgment: Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCOP 18 (T3).
So the hearing we observed (Amanda in person and Celia remotely) on 9th September 2025 in the Court of Appeal (before Lady Justice Asplin, Lord Justice Baker, and Lord Justice Birss[2]) was Luba’s much-delayed appeal against her 4-month prison sentence.
2. The Court of Appeal hearing on 9th September 2025 (Celia)
At the beginning of the hearing, Lady Asplin highlighted for Luba the key issues before the court:
- Was there a contempt of court?
- Was Poole J fair to make an order of contempt?
- Was the prison sentence proportionate in the circumstances?
In response, Luba did say that the videos she’d posted were pixelated and that she’d not identified her daughter by her full name – but most of her points were not directly relevant to the questions Lady Asplin had posed. Luba was following her own agenda and speaking up about what she considered important about her case.
In relation to the question of whether or not she had committed contempt of court (by disobeying the court’s orders), Luba pointed out that her daughter has always said she wants to come home – that she is imprisoned against her wishes, and “this is not simply one family – there are hundreds of other families who suffer from this current system”. She talked about the local authority abusing its power and said that it has “launched an attack on me on flimsy and unproved evidence” (she referred to it as “hearsay”). She said there had been “collusion between care workers, agencies, social workers and barristers” and that the Court of Protection “is supposed to protect my daughter but it is failing” and that the court trial was being used “to hide the failure of the system”.
Lady Asplin: You’re saying what you were doing was your only means of expression in relation to the situation you found yourself in. Any more you’d like to say in relation to “was there a contempt?”
Luba: The court itself is unlawful so any decision of the court is unlawful. To punish me now would be to punish a mother for doing her duty. My intention was to seek protection for my daughter, not to undermine the authority of the court. The orders are irrational, they deny my daughter’s human rights. She is crying for help. I cannot even phone 999 for help with orders that have left my daughter open to abuse. Other people are here today to support me – their children, their families, have been harmed by this system. […] The LA has duty under MCA and Care Act, it’s their bound duty to look after her but they are completely ignoring her cries for help.
In relation to the fairness (or otherwise) of the previous contempt hearings, Luba pointed out that she had been unrepresented at a key previous hearing, and also asked the court to “consider the wider context” – in particular, the impact of her imprisonment on her daughter and on her (disabled) husband: “By punishing me two innocents will be punished”.
Lord Baker focused on the narrow question of whether or not Luba had breached court orders:
Lord Baker: The injunction was that you shouldn’t record your daughter by video or audio.
Luba: Yes.
Lord Baker: But you did record her, didn’t you.
Luba: What else could I do!
Lord Baker: I know that’s your defence, but the order was not to record her.
Luba: The judge should not have made that order. How can it be right not to record when she is being abused?
Lord Baker: You were ordered not to put videos of your daughter on the internet.
Luba: It was a last resort. I did this out of desperation because no one would assist me.
The judgment was read out by Lord Baker and it’s published here: Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCA Civ 1159. He summarised Luba’s position:
- In her written and oral submissions, the appellant advanced a case in line with that which she has pursued for a number of years. She maintains that the professional agencies dealing her daughter, and the courts, have ignored evidence for eight years. Her case, in short, is that, as the court has failed in its duty to protect her daughter from abuse, forced medication, professional collusion and institutional neglect, and wrongly proceeded on the basis that her daughter lacked capacity, the whole process was contrary to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was her daughter whose rights were being infringed. In those circumstances, the injunctions were unlawful and therefore she was not acting in contempt of court by failing to comply with them.
- Secondly. Ms Macpherson said that she had been entitled to act in the way she had because no one was listening to her and publishing information online was the only step she could take to protect her daughter. Her concern was to safeguard her daughter from further harm and, as all the professionals, including judges, had ignored her concerns, and all professional regulators to whom she had complained had brushed her complaints aside, publicity was the only option. Ms Macpherson referred to other cases in which the courts have allowed a party to publish information relating to their complaints about the way cases have been handled by the NHS, other professional agencies, and the courts.
- Thirdly, Ms Macpherson insisted that she had done nothing wrong by posting video recordings of her daughter on social media. She said that she had ensured that FP’s identity was kept concealed – all the video recordings were carefully pixellated. She submitted that there was no evidence that she had caused any harm to FP by posting the video recordings, a fact which had been acknowledged by Poole J.
- In my judgment, none of these points undermines the central point on this appeal – that Mrs Macpherson knowingly and deliberately broke an order made by the court. The fact that she profoundly disagrees with the order does not entitle her to disregard it. There is nothing to support her repeated assertions of professional misconduct. Her very strong views have been aired on many occasions in the proceedings, but for the most part have been rejected by judges on the evidence. There is no merit in her assertion that the orders were unlawful. The straightforward position is that she was obliged to comply with the orders and deliberately chose not to do so.
Lord Baker went on to refer to Luba’s “serious and repeated flouting” of the court’s order” (§37), something she has continued “brazenly” (§37) to repeat during the period of her suspended sentence. The key message was that court orders must be obeyed – a message that also came through loud and clear in another recent Court of Appeal case dealing with a mother who repeatedly disobeyed court orders she considered unethical and contrary to her child’s best interests. (I wrote about that case here: Sentencing in contempt proceedings: Punishment and coercion in a case before Lieven J). It felt as though Luba was being made an example of and the Court of Appeal was (again) displaying to others who might be tempted to flout court orders that it would not hesitate to exact punishment.
Luba Macpherson’s appeal against her prison sentence was dismissed.
3. Bearing witness in person to the Court of Appeal hearing (Amanda)
What follows was written the evening of the hearing, after I returned to my hotel in London:
This isn’t my usual sort of blog. But then the hearing I observed today hasn’t been a usual hearing.
It was in the Court of Appeal, in person, to watch what would likely be Luba Macpherson’s final appeal against the four-month immediate prison handed down by Mr Justice Poole in the Court of Protection for contempt of court.
The appeal failed. At the end of the hearing, I witnessed two tipstaff officers (the people responsible for law enforcement in the High Court) walk up to Luba Macpherson and tell her that they were taking her to prison. They’d arrived to sit at the back of the court as the judge, Lord Justice Baker, was delivering the judgment. As soon as they arrived, I knew the writing was on the wall for Luba.
As the judges left the courtroom after the judgment, I saw Luba hug the lady who she had never met until the morning of the hearing, but who had sat next to her throughout the hearing after offering to be her McKenzie Friend.[3] I then saw her turn and walk towards the door, between the two tipstaff officers. I left my seat and walked up to her, to look her in the eye and wish her well. She looked shocked but calm. I didn’t know whether to hug her then as I wasn’t sure whether I should. But I had hugged her earlier.
I have followed Luba’s case for quite a while, and I knew I wanted be there for her Court of Appeal hearing in person. I’m so glad I was. I was waiting outside the courtroom when Luba arrived and we started talking to each other. It felt natural even though I hadn’t met Luba before. She said she had only slept for two hours and she was shaking. I ended up having lunch with Luba and a couple of other women who had also come to observe, including the one who became her McKenzie friend. The four of us had lunch together at the Pret a Manger opposite the Royal Courts of Justice and Luba bought us all a cup of tea to thank us for coming.
There was another family member of a protected party who had come to observe in person too and during the hour’s adjournment before the judgment I got chatting with her, sitting around a table outside the courtroom. She mentioned the new book Understanding Parent Blame by Luke Clements and Ana Laura Aiello , and recommended that I read it. Luba’s McKenzie friend went with her to get some fresh air. I was stunned when 20 minutes or so later Luba came back with a box of biscuits for me, in a bag with a label that said, “Thank you”. She wanted to thank me for making the effort to come to court that day. I still can’t believe that at a time when she knew she was probably going to be sent to prison she was so kind as to think of others. That’s when I hugged her.
After Luba had been taken away, the four of us women who had observed what had happened stood outside the courtroom. A tipstaff officer came back to make sure Luba hadn’t left any of her personal effects in the courtroom. It turned out that she had bought a few food items for herself during the adjournment. But the only thing she was allowed to take with her was a can of drink, because it was sealed. One of the other women I was with asked if she could send a card, but he said not at the moment, because she hadn’t got a prison number. That brought the reality of the situation home.
Walking away from the court, I couldn’t quite believe what had happened. I’d held out some hope that the inevitable could be avoided. That she wouldn’t actually be sent to prison. But the court flexed its muscles – she had broken the law and must be punished.
I feel drained. It’s quite something to see someone escorted away to prison. But that’s nothing compared to what Luba must feel like, spending her first night in prison, far, far away from her husband and daughter.
During a programme broadcast one Palm Sunday, the journalist Clive Myrie said (quoting the Biblical book, Lamentations 1:12), ‘All you who walk by on the road pay attention and see”. Perhaps that’s what we do as reporters – we simply try to get people to “pay attention and see“.
No journalists were at the hearing today to pay attention to what was happening and to see Luba Macpherson sent to prison[4]. At least Open Justice Court of Protection Project members were observing, so she was not sent to prison in secret. (And of course a judgment has been published.) Attention needs to be paid so that people can see.
Reading this again now, a few weeks after the hearing, I’m reminded how emotionally drained I was after the day at the court. It brings home to me how different it can be to observe in person compared with observing remotely. Observing that day was not a detached activity. I still think about that day a lot.
4. Hearing on 19th September 2025 before DJ Temple in Newcastle (Celia)
We knew in advance that an application from Luba to have a court order set aside was due to be heard by District Judge Temple in Newcastle on 19th September. Luba had been concerned that she wouldn’t be able to attend if she was in prison.
In fact, she was joined by video-link (a bit late), seated at a table – without a prison officer in the room as far as I could tell – wearing a stylish black and white stripy dress with red hearts: it was good to see her looking calm and resilient.
Shortly before the hearing started, I’d been sent the standard Transparency Order (made by DJ Temple on 22nd August 2025) which prevented me from identifying Luba Macpherson. I’d managed to send an email to the judge (at 10.50am for an 11am hearing) asking for the order to be varied since “the information it prohibits us from publishing is lawfully in the public domain”. I quoted Poole’s judgment of 20th January 2023 (EWCOP 3) which authorised naming Luba in relation both to the committal proceedings, and to the earlier welfare proceedings, and I cited previous reports naming Luba. The judge dealt with my application at the beginning of the hearing: after checking with Luba whether she had any objection (“No, I’m fine with that”), the judge said she would vary the order as I had requested.
It then turned out there was a problem with hearing the case that day because Luba didn’t have any of the court papers with her in prison. Although the only lawyer present (Sam Karim, on behalf of the local authority) made submissions that the hearing could proceed (because it’s “a simple application” and Luba “had time historically to consider it when she drafted it”), the judge decided that wouldn’t be fair. She was also concerned that there was nobody representing Luba’s daughter at this hearing.
The hearing was rearranged for 14th November 2025, after Luba is released from prison (apparently on 7th November) and will be heard remotely. It’s listed for 2 hours. I’m not entirely sure exactly what the issues are for this hearing but I hope to observe and report back.
Amanda Hill is a PhD student at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University. Her research focuses on the Court of Protection, exploring family experiences, media representations and social media activism. She is a core team member of OJCOP. She is also a daughter of a P in a Court of Protection case and has been a Litigant in Person. She is on LinkedIn (here), and also on X as (@AmandaAPHill) and on Bluesky (@AmandaAPHill.bsky.social).
Celia Kitzinger is co-director of the Open Justice Court of Protection Project. She has observed more than 600 hearings since May 2020 and written more than 100 blog posts. She is on LinkedIn (here), and also on X (@KitzingerCelia) and Bluesky @kitzingercelia.bsky.social)
Footnotes
[1] Luba is content for us to use this contraction of her name in reporting her case.
[2] I went in search of more information about the three judges (via google) and found their Wikipedia pages: Lady Asplin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Asplin; Lord Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Baker_(judge); and Lord Birss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Baker_(judge). I discovered that Lord Birss recently won fame (or notoriety) for using ChatGPT generated content in a judgment – and he’s also chancellor of the High Court (see Joshua Rozenberg’s blog about his appointment here). Curiously, all three judges have undergraduate degrees from Cambridge University – which is perhaps unsurprising given the report that 71% of “senior judges” are Oxbridge graduates (Elitist Britain, 2019)
[3] There’s information about McKenzie Friends here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/pfd-guidance-mckenzie-friends.pdf
[4] This was the day after the Banksy mural had appeared on the Royal Courts of Justice, depicting a robed and be-wigged judge using a gavel to hit a protestor with a blood-splattered placard who was lying on the ground. Two security officers were standing guard outside the building with the mural hidden from public view. Between 8th and 10th September 2025, there were numerous journalist reports about this work of art (e.g. the BBC here and here) but no journalist came into the court to observe Luba’s hearing. Subsequently, Luba’s supporters have used an edited version of the Banksy image to publicise her cause on social media: it shows an elderly woman with a bun, pushing her daughter in a wheelchair, being attacked by a judge brandishing not a gavel (which isn’t used in English courts!) but the ‘scales of justice’ with a pointed tip.
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 
Excellent blog… well done all involved in covering this case👏❤️
LikeLike
Feedback : This blog is not as useful as others from the Project. Only 9 pages. Little reporting of what was said during the hearing (Section 2) which is not already mentioned in the written judgment. No reflections on the conduct of the hearing or the reasons for the outcome. (Section 3 focuses of Amanda’s feelings and events not directly related to the hearing.) Which is surprising as this is the end of this phase of the litigation. Although knowing Luba this will not be the end of her 7-year dispute with Sunderland City Council (SCC).
LikeLiked by 1 person
As with your report of the hearing on 3 December 2024, some important questions remain.
* Who was present at the hearing on 9 September 2025? What if anything was said by counsel for SCC?
* How long between the hearing of arguments and delivery of the Court’s decision? Did the lunchtime meeting in Pret a Manger take place during this adjournment, or before the hearing started? If the former, it is surprising that Luba was allowed to leave the Royal Courts complex unescorted by tipstaff after she had had her say in court. Given the likelihood of her conviction being upheld, she could have absconded and left the country – again. That would have been embarrassing!
* Did Baker LJ read out the whole of the (long) written decision which you have quoted from, or only the paragraphs 30-33 as you have quoted them, or a briefer explanation of the outcome which was expanded later? I cannot believe that he had time during the adjournment both to discuss the case with colleagues Birss and Asplin and to write the substantial decision published (apparently) later the same day.
Because it is available elsewhere, the long quotation is not as valuable as speech or conduct which did not get into the published decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the blog post.
We do appreciate that the long quotation comes not just from the hearing but was also part of the published judgment but in our experience many people like us to extract what (for us) is the salient part of a longer judgment and reproduce it in the context of our blog posts. We appreciate opinions may vary on this. We believe there is space for a range and variety of blog styles – including some that focus on the feelings and experiences of the observers, as well as some that are more technical and sophisticated. Diversity is our strength!
In response to your questions.
Counsel for SCC said very little in court. He relied on the skeleton argument which essentially reiterated the points made at the earlier contempt hearings. Luba did not say anything new or different in making her appeal, so I guess he didn’t feel a need to say more.
Yes, the lunchtime meeting was after the morning part of the hearing and before the court reconvened to give judgment. I don’t know whether there would have been a legal basis to detain Luba in the courtroom. I guess perhaps not!
Yes, Baker LJ read out the whole of the long written decision pretty much as it appears in print. It had been agreed with the other two judges. I am often amazed at the speed at which judges can produce judgments.
I hope that is helpful.
Celia
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Amanda and Celia, for your courage to write with truth and compassion. You did what too few dare to do, you saw. You recorded what happens when a mother’s love collides with a system built to protect itself.
Your report reflects the humanity and tension of that day, yet there is more that needs to be said. In the hearing, I raised concerns about the published video evidence, evidence that goes to the heart of what has been concealed for years. Lord Justice Baker confirmed that none of the three judges had seen it. They relied entirely on the judgments of previous judges. But how can anyone challenge injustice when each layer of the system hides behind the one before it? That is how cover-ups endure — through the polite ritual of judicial endorsement, where no one dares to look too closely.
This is what has happened throughout our case. Judge Poole openly admitted he had not read the case in full, yet he relied on the findings of Judge Moir. One judge after another protecting the last, and the truth buried beneath the weight of their collective certainty. I still do not believe there was any contempt of court, only a mother refusing to stay silent while her daughter suffers.
Amanda and Celia, you have done what the system resists, you made the unseen visible. You showed that justice is not only a matter of law, but of conscience. One day, I believe history will judge this not as a story of contempt, but as a story of courage. Thank you!
For anyone who wishes to hear my own words, this was my speech to the Court of Appeal:[Editorial note: this has been edited to remove Luba’s daughter’s name – since we would be in breach of a court injunction against us to use it (or to post a link to anything that identifies her by name)- but is otherwise as read by Luba to the court.)
Contempt of Court Hearing Speech.
Opening:
My Lords,
I must begin by saying very clearly: I did nothing wrong by publishing video material, because I never named or identified my daughter publicly. In fact, it was the Court itself that identified her! First, it was admitted at the 18 February 2025 COP Hearing, and twice just recently by the local Court of Protection.
Any videos I shared were carefully pixelated — they did not reveal personal identities. Their purpose was solely to show the appalling standards of care and to protect my daughter [Name], not to harm or expose anyone.
My motivation has always been safeguarding. It is unbearable to me that I am now being prosecuted for trying to protect her rights when all other avenues have failed.
I maintain that I have done nothing wrong by publishing evidence of the neglect my daughter has suffered.
Every authority with a duty to act — the Court, the Regulators, and the Local Authority — has ignored this evidence.
Publishing it was not contempt; it was my defence.
More so, these videos were published years ago. And no harm ever resulted. That has even been accepted in other Courts by Barristers and a Judge.
But I must also ask: what videos are we speaking of? Where are they? Has this Court even seen them?
In all Court proceedings the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
Without the videos being presented as evidence, there is no proof of contempt. Allegations are not evidence.
The process against me has been riddled with errors: late and unsigned orders, missing notifications, and reasons that contradict the Mental Capacity Act. By the Wednesbury principle, no reasonable authority could act in such an irrational way. But SCC has, because they have acted unreasonably.
Meanwhile, safeguarding failures remain unresolved. A care home registered under false pretences was never investigated. Even the police were blocked from pursuing serious allegations of neglect and abuse, something that repeats in SCC history, with the Witherwack House scandal.
Complaints and Systemic Failures
I have made repeated formal complaints to every Regulating Authority you can think of, including to the Judicial Conduct Office, about judges mishandling this case. Those complaints, filed between 2021 and 2023, were supported by evidence of procedural errors, broken law, and discrimination. Yet they were ignored.
This is not just about one order, it is about a pattern of systemic failure. The regulators, the Ombudsman, and the judicial complaints process all brushed aside my concerns. That history demonstrates how impossible it has been for me to get a fair hearing in this system. Gagging orders should not be used to hide wrongdoing.
Most seriously, my daughter’s and our family rights have been denied. She has been isolated, silenced, and told not to speak her native language. Yet she has always been clear: she wants to come home. That is her right under the Mental Capacity Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
My Lords, this is not simply about one family. Abuse thrives in secrecy. Only openness protects the vulnerable.
Imprisoning me for contempt will not protect my daughter — it will only deepen the injustice.”
Further to the above,
My Lords,
What I see in this case is:
This is not how the Court of Protection is supposed to function.
Denial of [my Daughter’s] Rights
“If I am not permitted to speak to my daughter… if her advocate claims to have no role… and if Social Services show no interest… Then how is [my daughter] to be informed about what is happening in her name?
She has been deliberately isolated. Her voice has been silenced. She has been told not to speak Russian, though no court order prohibits it.
[My daughter] has consistently said that she wants to come home. There is no lawful or moral justification for keeping her confined, cut off from visitors, and with her wishes ignored.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the European Convention on Human Rights, she has the right to be heard, to participate, and to live with the least restriction. None of this has been respected.”
Ignored Legal Precedents
“I also provided my solicitor, Michael Barrett, with links to several key precedents and landmark judgments. These were never used by my legal team, even though they directly support my position and undermine the legal basis of the committal order.
These authorities show that the committal order against me rests on a deeply flawed legal and factual foundation.
For too long, no one has listened to [my daughter] or to me, or to my husband. We have raised clinical negligence, wilful neglect, and safeguarding concerns again and again. The system has ignored us. The legal process has become my only remaining path to protect her rights
Closing
You Honour, this is not just about one family. These failings expose systemic weaknesses in safeguarding, accountability, and transparency.
Abuse thrives in secrecy. Only openness protects the vulnerable.
While I have been silenced and threatened with imprisonment for speaking out, the Court itself has publicly named my daughter in its own documents. This double standard exposes the imbalance of power and complete inefficiency.
By the Wednesbury principle, decisions that are irrational and disproportionate cannot stand as lawful.
My daughter deserves protection, not neglect. She deserves truth, not concealment, she deserves her voice. And I respectfully ask this Court to see that imprisoning me for contempt would serve only to compound the injustice, not correct it.” It would certainly harm [my daughter], as recognised by Judge Poole.
I want to make clear that my actions were never intended to disrespect the Court, but to protect my daughter, [Name]. For more than eight years, I have raised safeguarding concerns which remain unanswered, and I was silenced by an injunction that Mr Justice Poole himself acknowledged was likely to harm her.
The orders against us are disproportionate, unsupported by law, and contrary to both the Mental Capacity Act and fundamental human rights. I have been criminalised for trying to protect my daughter, where all the so-called safeguards failed.
To punish me now would be to punish a mother for doing her duty. I respectfully ask the Court to recognise the injustice and to allow my case to be judged fairly, on the evidence and on the law.
I acted out of necessity, not defiance. My intention was to seek protection for [my daughter], not to undermine the authority of the Court.
I respectfully submit that punishing me for breaching an order that was itself unlawful and harmful would be unjust. I ask the Court to consider the wider context, the impact on [my daughter], and our rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
More so, my husband is 77 years old and disabled. He also was punished by this unfair process, yet he was never accused of anything, and we lost all his private pension pot in this case. By punishing me, two innocent people will be punished. As you know that one of my Grounds, The committal order punishes breaches of injunctions that should never have been made.
Mr Justice Poole accepted that the injunctions were “likely to do more harm than good” to [my daughter].
The injunctions did not protect [my daughter’s] welfare but instead restricted the Appellant’s ability to protest, lacking any lawful or proportionate basis.
Punishment for breaching such orders is arbitrary, contrary to Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, and an abuse of discretion.
I trust the Court will see that my actions were motivated by love for my daughter and by the urgent need to safeguard her wellbeing, and with her full approval.
LikeLike
Helpful yes.
Sam Karim KC for SCC submitted a devastating motion in writing asking for Luba’s amended grounds of appeal to be rejected because of failures to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. I wondered if he had pressed his request in court. See paragraph 26. LJ Baker said that the amended grounds were substantially the same as before. However ground 7 was new. If the judges had found any merit in it, I think they would have had to disallow it because of Mr Karim’s argument. In any case it required a review of earlier decisions, which they will not do. It makes sense that there would be no legal basis for preventing Luba from leaving the courts during the adjournment, before the judges had announced their verdict. Even if there had been a legal basis, I doubt if anyone at the court would have thought of using it. As the fiasco with the arrest warrant suggests, there is nobody in the justice system to take care of such ancillary matters.
Unless the adjournment was very long, I think LJ Baker must have prepared most of the written judgment before the hearing. Paragraphs 1-25, 27-28 could be written in advance. A lot of this is irrelevant – eg the interlude relating to Luba’s capacity to litigate.
LikeLike