ChatterBank9 mins ago
Redress When Defamed In Court.
13 Answers
I am very concerned that a family member has caused indeterminable mayhem at another in the wider family in respect of defaming their character because of lying under Oath on an Affidavit being presented in a past Injunction.
The Applicant in this case made allegations of 24 paragraphs of which 22 were found to be inaccurate in the meaning of "I believe" this and that when in fact this and that were not the truth. Is a real interpretation of " I believe", when not found to be proven, mendacious? The 22 allegations were found to not be true and were sworn on Oath to be just that. These allegation were a meant to defame the Respondent based upon assumption and not borne out by provable facts.
One example. The Respondent was supposed to have poured acid on to a child's foot in a science lesson and this was the reason that they lost their job as teacher in a State School. (Fantasy). But the applicant was unsure of this so they also stated that the Respondent lost there job and were not allowed to teach anymore because they had an illicit relationship with a girl minor, who as the same person was a minor in 1979, 1981 and 1995. (It gets even more bizarre on allegation in that the applicant stated that witnesses saw the Respondent with this minor person being taught in their own home. The witness subsequently informed the Applicant's relatives, in 1995. The Applicant and the family informed were not even living in the UK until the year 2000!). (Again fantasy...not that there was any proof...how could there be when such outrageous allegations based on psychological imbalance of the Applicant...how her legal advisers supported such we can only dream about).
Can you now understand what this family member must be feeling as the Respondent. The minor in question was a foreign student from W. Germany a language student of 17 years in 1979, 19 in 1981 and 33 years in 1995 and latterly a Consultant Psychotherapist. (The relationship was totally platonic anyway).
These allegations are just 2 out of a further 20 which are gross misinterpretation and not borne out with irrefutably proven evidence. The two truths being the Applicant's name and place of birth. (The applicant did not even know the date of birth of her child, she was three months out and one day!)
We were told that when taking out an Injunction the the onus is on the Applicant to prove any allegations. When the balance of probabilities were found to discredit the Applicant is there no redress through the Court procedures to make the Applicant accountable for lying under Oath? All previous Prohibitive Steps were summarily discharged.
Has anyone an opinion for the Respondent to gain redress?
The Applicant in this case made allegations of 24 paragraphs of which 22 were found to be inaccurate in the meaning of "I believe" this and that when in fact this and that were not the truth. Is a real interpretation of " I believe", when not found to be proven, mendacious? The 22 allegations were found to not be true and were sworn on Oath to be just that. These allegation were a meant to defame the Respondent based upon assumption and not borne out by provable facts.
One example. The Respondent was supposed to have poured acid on to a child's foot in a science lesson and this was the reason that they lost their job as teacher in a State School. (Fantasy). But the applicant was unsure of this so they also stated that the Respondent lost there job and were not allowed to teach anymore because they had an illicit relationship with a girl minor, who as the same person was a minor in 1979, 1981 and 1995. (It gets even more bizarre on allegation in that the applicant stated that witnesses saw the Respondent with this minor person being taught in their own home. The witness subsequently informed the Applicant's relatives, in 1995. The Applicant and the family informed were not even living in the UK until the year 2000!). (Again fantasy...not that there was any proof...how could there be when such outrageous allegations based on psychological imbalance of the Applicant...how her legal advisers supported such we can only dream about).
Can you now understand what this family member must be feeling as the Respondent. The minor in question was a foreign student from W. Germany a language student of 17 years in 1979, 19 in 1981 and 33 years in 1995 and latterly a Consultant Psychotherapist. (The relationship was totally platonic anyway).
These allegations are just 2 out of a further 20 which are gross misinterpretation and not borne out with irrefutably proven evidence. The two truths being the Applicant's name and place of birth. (The applicant did not even know the date of birth of her child, she was three months out and one day!)
We were told that when taking out an Injunction the the onus is on the Applicant to prove any allegations. When the balance of probabilities were found to discredit the Applicant is there no redress through the Court procedures to make the Applicant accountable for lying under Oath? All previous Prohibitive Steps were summarily discharged.
Has anyone an opinion for the Respondent to gain redress?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Tamarmanipbes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This sounds like an American case - and the answer is no
But even if it were an English case - the answer is still no.
The general rule (US and UK) is that a case shall not beget a case
so that as soon as one says - I brought this case because she sued me, it gets thrown out. I think you might have experienced that when the prohibitive injunctions were thrown out - but they should have explained that then
The differences are ; perjury - There has to be a witness to the perjured act
and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. -that I dont know much about.
Perjury is a crime and not a tort so even if you show perjury, you can't get damages. I am not sure about Malicious Falsehood - I think you have to show the case was brought maliciously and not that the statements were untrue.
Basically you are screwed.
This sort of thing happens to all of us
The Law is designed to be like this - so it doesnt stop people from bringing cases to their Lordships.
But even if it were an English case - the answer is still no.
The general rule (US and UK) is that a case shall not beget a case
so that as soon as one says - I brought this case because she sued me, it gets thrown out. I think you might have experienced that when the prohibitive injunctions were thrown out - but they should have explained that then
The differences are ; perjury - There has to be a witness to the perjured act
and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. -that I dont know much about.
Perjury is a crime and not a tort so even if you show perjury, you can't get damages. I am not sure about Malicious Falsehood - I think you have to show the case was brought maliciously and not that the statements were untrue.
Basically you are screwed.
This sort of thing happens to all of us
The Law is designed to be like this - so it doesnt stop people from bringing cases to their Lordships.
No. " I believe" covers a multitude of false statements; a person may believe that the Earth is flat and not nearly round. That the belief is demonstrably false does not stop someone genuinely having it. Commonly the belief amounts to no more than what the witness was told by someone, malicious or otherwise, and therefore is hearsay which is either not admissible as evidence of fact or, depending on the proceeding, is admitted but no, or very little weight is attached to it; it may be admitted to explain why someone acted as they did, rather than as proof of the facts asserted in it, or to go to the character of the person saying it, to show that they will freely assert anything without any grounds.
If such statements gave rise to a claim for monetary damages or other redress, the courts would be doing little else but try such actions, since barely a case passes, whether criminal or civil, without such statements.
So the short answer is "No". The satisfaction has to be that the statements are not believed. Only in extreme cases, where the plaintiff (complainant in England) has deliberately brought an action based on falsifying records or other deliberate attempt to pervert public justice, does the matter end in prosecution for perjury.That still doesn't mean that a civil action will be brought following conviction.
If such statements gave rise to a claim for monetary damages or other redress, the courts would be doing little else but try such actions, since barely a case passes, whether criminal or civil, without such statements.
So the short answer is "No". The satisfaction has to be that the statements are not believed. Only in extreme cases, where the plaintiff (complainant in England) has deliberately brought an action based on falsifying records or other deliberate attempt to pervert public justice, does the matter end in prosecution for perjury.That still doesn't mean that a civil action will be brought following conviction.
Thank you for all of you who have taken up your valuable time to respond.
My fundamental point from the information provided was to illustrate the mindset of the Applicant bringing the Injunction. The Applicant was coached into making such defamatory allegations in a manner which verges on mendacity but then draws back on the implications. We understand this. However the libel aspect is another.
The point being the ridicule it really brings on the Applicant if now that the Court case is finalised and if the allegations were made known to society to interpret the description given. The redress itself is to make known the dysfunctional psychology of the Applicant, in not knowing what they are doing to others and themselves in the wider context. Does it give the normal person who had to interpret these words an understanding of self delusion of this person? Would they be trusted to be responsible for the welfare of children if they cannot perceive the reality of truth? This is the real argument and the perjury context is not irrelevant but as one commentator remarked (and thank you for this ) that it is the "malicious aspect" which is relevant. Or should one say an implacably hostile parent (mother) which has been qualified by two different senior legal advisers and now is becoming much more realised and acted upon in the Courts since Bala's demonstration of last year. There is some relevance in this work of Anti-Social and Narcissistic Personality disorders being the thrust of the dysfunctional behaviour of such parents (female and male). This will illustrate itself if subsequent mediation fails and the Court is needed. But how should the Judges respond? That which is of the best interest of the children? Of the needs of an independent S7 Report? In depth analysis and assessment of Court Appointed Guardians. Or what is really best for children, parents sitting down with mediators and acting like real parents? Our family would be interested to receive your opinions.
My fundamental point from the information provided was to illustrate the mindset of the Applicant bringing the Injunction. The Applicant was coached into making such defamatory allegations in a manner which verges on mendacity but then draws back on the implications. We understand this. However the libel aspect is another.
The point being the ridicule it really brings on the Applicant if now that the Court case is finalised and if the allegations were made known to society to interpret the description given. The redress itself is to make known the dysfunctional psychology of the Applicant, in not knowing what they are doing to others and themselves in the wider context. Does it give the normal person who had to interpret these words an understanding of self delusion of this person? Would they be trusted to be responsible for the welfare of children if they cannot perceive the reality of truth? This is the real argument and the perjury context is not irrelevant but as one commentator remarked (and thank you for this ) that it is the "malicious aspect" which is relevant. Or should one say an implacably hostile parent (mother) which has been qualified by two different senior legal advisers and now is becoming much more realised and acted upon in the Courts since Bala's demonstration of last year. There is some relevance in this work of Anti-Social and Narcissistic Personality disorders being the thrust of the dysfunctional behaviour of such parents (female and male). This will illustrate itself if subsequent mediation fails and the Court is needed. But how should the Judges respond? That which is of the best interest of the children? Of the needs of an independent S7 Report? In depth analysis and assessment of Court Appointed Guardians. Or what is really best for children, parents sitting down with mediators and acting like real parents? Our family would be interested to receive your opinions.
Hadn't realised this was a family court matter. If I had earlier, I'd have told you that I used to joke that I didn't like that work because in other cases (crime) one side was lying, in others (civil) nobody was lying but was wondering how they got into this expensive mess, but in family cases everybody ended up lying including the social workers ! There is a grain of truth in that. Emotions run so high that you will soon find that someone goes right over the top and starts giving the most extravagant exaggerations and fictions. Common sense goes right out of the window.
Now look, judges who deal with these cases have seen this a thousand times; everyone involved thinks their case is unique for it; but to the judges it's everyday fare.
The fundamental rule in all common law countries (US, UK etc) is , in cases involving minors, 'children', the interests of the child are paramount. the judge will strive to find the best solution for the child. The judge may not be swayed much by displays of emotion or patent falsehoods though they may be driven to the conclusion that the party is not to be trusted as unstable. They may not; it might still be best for a minor to be with that party or directed by them. Anyway, as I say, they've seen it so often that they can see through the smoke of this emotional battlefield, even though those involved can't.
Now look, judges who deal with these cases have seen this a thousand times; everyone involved thinks their case is unique for it; but to the judges it's everyday fare.
The fundamental rule in all common law countries (US, UK etc) is , in cases involving minors, 'children', the interests of the child are paramount. the judge will strive to find the best solution for the child. The judge may not be swayed much by displays of emotion or patent falsehoods though they may be driven to the conclusion that the party is not to be trusted as unstable. They may not; it might still be best for a minor to be with that party or directed by them. Anyway, as I say, they've seen it so often that they can see through the smoke of this emotional battlefield, even though those involved can't.
No Tamar: I dont think you understand.
Libel is NOT an option here - [ as a redress for lying in an affidavit ]
Perjury is ( R v Archer )
Malicious Falsehood is not an 'aspect' - it is a remedy in civil law in England. I still think it may not be applicable for lying in an affidavit
we know what the Judges views will be based on:
the interests of the child are paramount
(children act 1989)
1. I dont think this is an English case
2. I dont think you can see the wood for the trees - that is you havent grasped the basics of the case
The principles are simpler than you think
Libel is NOT an option here - [ as a redress for lying in an affidavit ]
Perjury is ( R v Archer )
Malicious Falsehood is not an 'aspect' - it is a remedy in civil law in England. I still think it may not be applicable for lying in an affidavit
we know what the Judges views will be based on:
the interests of the child are paramount
(children act 1989)
1. I dont think this is an English case
2. I dont think you can see the wood for the trees - that is you havent grasped the basics of the case
The principles are simpler than you think
Fred and Peter.
Thank you for your opinions. I did not at this stage want to delve deeply into this family situation. Taking into consideration and the fact of normal and loving relationships with the children before this Court situation arose, it would be difficult for you to make comment only quite correctly on what was described. The fact of this situation was that the Finding of Fact was not heard, all Prohibitive Steps discharged. It was the interpretation of the S7 Report which was damning and made no reference by asking deeper questions on the interaction of the children with their sisters and Dad. Evidence freely available to the Court at that time of happy relations of the children playing with their sisters and Dad were provided and the Court recognised this. (There were over 30 such video files available). Social Services (now Children's Services) were disinclined to observe them, nor during their "Assessment" did they ever objectively observe the children with their Dad in any manner whatsoever. But the issues could be elaborated and the 60 bulleted points of unprofessional conduct is for CS of this particular County Service to address in the near future. They did not do their work properly. If two senior and separate Legal Advisers attach reality to the Implacably Hostile Parent then why not CS? Are they not trained to identify this. When the two children had been provided with child centred welfare as the primary carer by the Dad was this one main reason for the "malicious" attacks on Affidavit?
I am afraid that the hostility was registered practically against all members of the paternal family, and transferred to the feelings of the children; to maintain their sanity they concurred with such a scenario. Interestingly enough both children in the original assessment evaluations wanted association with their Dad and family; the eldest wanted residency with the Dad on divorce; such was given freely. One month later the paternal family were aliens! Interesting! All those years (10 and 7) of the boy children "hiding hurt" in their hearts for their sisters and Dad...must be really good actors. When the day before the debacle arrived the oldest was determined out of free choice to make the decision of residency which came as open remark and unsolicited...(No they were not trained a circus lions...that was CS ideas of biased association with the maternal family as proven in the Court proceedings and one of the 60 bullet points of serious concern).
So it seems until now that a maternal influence on the children which was not as the main carer (too hard working to concern themselves with their welfare...just like many working away from home fathers) attempts maliciously to undermine the paternal family, fails in this manner, LIES to the Court and CS team (who believe her without any foundation of the background truth), indoctrinates the children by making them believe that she won the Court case by distancing the children from the paternal family, who have not seen them since the middle of October last, is promoting, "the best interest of the children".....Oh dear seems a bit extreme even for one who vents anger at anyone who disagrees with her feelings! Is it in the "best interest of the children" not to have an association with their Dad or sisters? A bit extreme even with those who are known to be legal abusers! Strange this term. I am sure this situation is seen by many Courts on a daily basis but in this country we fail to act on what is in the best interest of the children.
Again the circle swings back to mediation, which was suggested to the maternal family over a year ago and such was ridiculed by them. Now professional mediators are involved to encourage the maternal family of what is in the best interest of the children. I wonder if they will understand this term?
Thank you for your opinions. I did not at this stage want to delve deeply into this family situation. Taking into consideration and the fact of normal and loving relationships with the children before this Court situation arose, it would be difficult for you to make comment only quite correctly on what was described. The fact of this situation was that the Finding of Fact was not heard, all Prohibitive Steps discharged. It was the interpretation of the S7 Report which was damning and made no reference by asking deeper questions on the interaction of the children with their sisters and Dad. Evidence freely available to the Court at that time of happy relations of the children playing with their sisters and Dad were provided and the Court recognised this. (There were over 30 such video files available). Social Services (now Children's Services) were disinclined to observe them, nor during their "Assessment" did they ever objectively observe the children with their Dad in any manner whatsoever. But the issues could be elaborated and the 60 bulleted points of unprofessional conduct is for CS of this particular County Service to address in the near future. They did not do their work properly. If two senior and separate Legal Advisers attach reality to the Implacably Hostile Parent then why not CS? Are they not trained to identify this. When the two children had been provided with child centred welfare as the primary carer by the Dad was this one main reason for the "malicious" attacks on Affidavit?
I am afraid that the hostility was registered practically against all members of the paternal family, and transferred to the feelings of the children; to maintain their sanity they concurred with such a scenario. Interestingly enough both children in the original assessment evaluations wanted association with their Dad and family; the eldest wanted residency with the Dad on divorce; such was given freely. One month later the paternal family were aliens! Interesting! All those years (10 and 7) of the boy children "hiding hurt" in their hearts for their sisters and Dad...must be really good actors. When the day before the debacle arrived the oldest was determined out of free choice to make the decision of residency which came as open remark and unsolicited...(No they were not trained a circus lions...that was CS ideas of biased association with the maternal family as proven in the Court proceedings and one of the 60 bullet points of serious concern).
So it seems until now that a maternal influence on the children which was not as the main carer (too hard working to concern themselves with their welfare...just like many working away from home fathers) attempts maliciously to undermine the paternal family, fails in this manner, LIES to the Court and CS team (who believe her without any foundation of the background truth), indoctrinates the children by making them believe that she won the Court case by distancing the children from the paternal family, who have not seen them since the middle of October last, is promoting, "the best interest of the children".....Oh dear seems a bit extreme even for one who vents anger at anyone who disagrees with her feelings! Is it in the "best interest of the children" not to have an association with their Dad or sisters? A bit extreme even with those who are known to be legal abusers! Strange this term. I am sure this situation is seen by many Courts on a daily basis but in this country we fail to act on what is in the best interest of the children.
Again the circle swings back to mediation, which was suggested to the maternal family over a year ago and such was ridiculed by them. Now professional mediators are involved to encourage the maternal family of what is in the best interest of the children. I wonder if they will understand this term?
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
Crosswords16 mins ago
Film, Media & TV47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles69 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.