- This topic has 17 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some things occurred to me:
(1) Alistair didn’t sound like his normal self. Is this a new actor?
(2) Kate seems to have forgotten that Hayley raised her daughter and she’s got nothing to be pleased with herself about. Plus, she has two other children who are rarely mentioned. Any chance of getting Hayley back in the village?
(3) The character statistics showed me what I feared I already knew: along with it being the worst wet weather on record, there was too much of Pip and the Fairbrethren in the last month. Please can we have less of Pip?
(4) The scriptwriters either don’t have legal advisers for their storylines or have never bothered to research the family courts, the language used and the procedure – much of which is available online. Just because family court proceedings are in private and you don’t get newspapers reporting on them and they’re not often the stuff of drama on TV, it doesn’t mean that you ought to render them a complete travesty of the truth. Do people really think this is what happens in the family court?!!
I thought Alistair sounded different too, but I’ve done a quick bit of Googling, and seems it is still Michael Lumsden, who has played Alistair since 1997. Maybe he had a cold! I’d love to see Hayley back too.
I’m not surprised that Kate didn’t give Hayley any credit. It’s no better than I would expect of her. Roy however should be ashamed of himself.
Very good points! Could you, Miss Mid City, give some insight into which were the most blatants error in the Family Court scenes? It seemed like the judge was very insensitive.
I’d also be curious as to the mistakes in the Family Court scenes, and how it actually works. The Judge was noticeably biased personally towards Rob, whose “acting” and lies in court would be almost laughable if they weren’t so dangerous. If the coercive control law is going to be used in this story line, I look forward to seeing how Anna gets around Rob’s lies to make a case for Helen.
Anyone out there who’s an experienced family lawyer can feel free to disagree with me but …
Firstly, a First Hearing Dispute Resolution appointment (FHDRA) is not a final hearing. No-one professionally refers to it as a custody hearing. The decisions made are not meant to have permanent effect. It’s what lawyers call an “interim” hearing which deals with the situation until you have all the evidence ready for a final hearing.
The key thing for me is that the FHDRA is normally the forum where you raise the issue of safeguarding and whether there are any allegations of domestic violence or harm to the child.
It’s also the forum where you talk about the wishes and feelings of the child. All of this is supposed to be with a view to resolving disputes where you can and where you still have disagreements, working out what you’re going to do to resolve them. Maybe you’ll need to have a hearing about the allegations of domestic violence; maybe you’ll need expert reports on the psychological health of the parent(s) or child; maybe you’ll need access to medical records or police records – it’s a matter for the lawyers together with the judge to work out what’s necessary.
I wouldn’t normally expect to hear from the mother and father in the case directly – only through their lawyers. So there was no need to script anything for Helen or Rob. However, I would expect to hear something from the CAFCASS officer.
In my mind, this is where there’s been a significant problem for Helen. She failed to tell the CAFCASS officer, the police, her own lawyer, her best friend, her mother and the helpline about the extent of the violence that she suffered and the violence that she feared Henry would suffer. This has impacted upon both her criminal case and the family proceedings.
In the real world, my worry for her would be that by the time she made a full disclosure it would be too late for her to be taken seriously and for her allegations to be given any credence. However, the way the script is shaping up, she’s likely to say nothing about the allegation of rape and the fact that Rob hit her (I’m right about that, aren’t I?! He did hit her at least once!) and the various ways he tried to control her until she’s in the witness box. That’s great for drama but in reality, it wouldn’t get past a judge. The standard line from any lawyer would be along the lines of, “If all of this was true, why didn’t you say it earlier?” or they’d remind you that in the English legal system, we believe in fairness and making sure that if you have allegations to make, you bring the proof or you at least let the person you accuse know the case they have to answer.
If Helen had made open and frank disclosure to CAFCASS the scenario would be different. There might be grounds to ask for psychological reports for her and Rob, and some assessment of his parenting capacity since he wants to be able to look after the baby. Since there are criminal proceedings running in parallel with the family case, there’d need to be some cautious case management.
I’d be really interested to know if there are any other family lawyers who listen and what they think … !
Family court thing – probably done for dramatic purposes but I found it distressing enough the small bit that was played (just catching up on the omnibus now) so I suspect that closer to the truth with regards to legal affairs will be even more distressing.
The only guiding hope is that Rob makes an outburst in court to discredit himself. Helen needs to start talking to somebody – anybody. For legal bods – is it a done thing for lawyers to step down if they feel they can no longer represent someone?
Miss Mid City, I appreciate that your focus is the family court side, but can you answer a question that came up on the twitters: At what stage will Anna Toboggan get to hear exactly what the proseuctions’s case is, and when does she have to tell them what the defence will be? I know there ar some rules about not introducing new evidence without the other side having a chance to evaluate it, but I just wondered about the actual timings. The rumours of resolution in September suggest that we’re not going to ahve the kind of last-minute revelation that would be grounds for an adjournment. And surely Anna will eventually be told about the phone tracking by Rob, the paternity suit with Jess, the investiagted allegation from the hunt saboteur, and all the other things the police must be doing since the incident?
Can Helen divorce Tichy?
Then she could be Helen Archer again,
Is Henry’s name still Henry ARCHER?
..all these things and more but of course the SW are not exactly attending to details.
But Miss Mid I just need you to reassure me?My response:
To Ibn Battuta – the most blatant error to me was the failure of the judge to ask Anna Tregorran what the “very strong legitimate concerns” were about Henry remaining in Rob’s care. In the real world, no lawyer could make that submission without being made to substantiate it. The fictional judge didn’t seem to bat an eyelid. So far Helen has not given any information at all about the “very strong legitimate concerns” she has so there were no grounds for Anna to make that statement.
To Magic at Mungos – the barristers “old Code of Conduct” Part IV sets out the ethical guidance. There’s nothing in the code that says you can return your instructions and withdraw from acting in a case because you think it’s like previous a case where you felt you’d made a big mistake. But if I were Anna, I’d call the Bar Council ethics telephone helpline. They’re really good in my experience!
To Purple Pumpkin – I’m not sure at what stage Anna would get to hear the prosecution case in the real world. However, I imagine that she ought to know what it is by now (if the trial date is September). One of the underlying principles of criminal proceedings in this country is that you can’t ambush the prosecution (or the defence). You have to lay all your cards on the table before the trial. As time has gone by and the police have conducted their investigation, they will have disclosed material to the defence. When the defence has this information, relevant exhibits and a statement from the defendant and other defence witnesses, a defence case statement should be prepared. In any event, the defence case statement needs to be ready by the time of the Plea and Case Management Hearing. I can’t advise you about the actual timescales or timetable but if the trial date is set for September, as I said, Anna ought to know what the prosecution’s case is by now.
Helen is presenting as traumatised. She simply can’t or won’t talk about the events that led to the incident or the incident itself. In my view, Anna ought to have obtained a psychological assessment. It’s getting too late now. Helen still hasn’t said anything useful to anyone who needs to know – not her barrister, her solicitor or CAFCASS. Expert reports take a long time – anywhere from a minimum of 2 – 4 weeks. She can’t leave it until the trial. She isn’t advancing a positive case for her own defence. She’s pleading self defence without explaining anything about the actual threat she needed to defend herself from. This is nonsense.
As far as we know Anna has not been told about the phone tracking by Rob, the paternity suit with Jess, the allegation from the hunt saboteur, the allegation of physical assault and sexual assault – so the prosecution know nothing of this and the police haven’t been able to investigate.
The big mistake the writers are making is to conflate the UK system with the US system and lead lay people to believe that lawyers carry out investigations. They don’t. Barristers present cases and argue them in court. Solicitors do the same, too, but they also conduct the litigation, make the enquiries and do the case preparation required so that an advocate (whether it’s a solicitor or barrister) can present the case in court. It’s the police and the CPS who do the actual investigations.
I’m dying to hear what she (and Helen) make of Rob’s statement. If it’s anything like the verbal account we heard him give the investigating officer with its veiled references to Helen and Kirsty being in a lesbian relationship and bizarre comments about the Bridge Farm Archers, I’d like to know their reaction.
What the writers have put together so far is a bit rubbish, in my view. They should have asked Peter Moffat to write this stuff! He wrote “Silk” starring Maxine Peake. He also wrote “Kavanagh QC” starring John Thaw. At least he knows what he’s been talking about: he’s been a barrister. Or they could even have asked my old lecturer from Bar School, Clive Coleman, who’s now the BBC’s legal affairs correspondent. He once wrote a mildly funny sitcom for which I forgive him: the point is, he actually knows about criminal procedure and he already works for the BBC.
I’m so glad that you are on the Forum Miss Mid-City, I do appreciate the time and effort you put in pointing out the pitfalls and possibilities, as well as the flaws. So, my thoughts are about this tracking software that Rob put on Helen’s phone: wasn’t it the police who discovered that and told Helen? If so, why hasn’t that been made public knowledge? Would Helen’s solicitor not have been talking to the police to get all the facts, and then tell Anna? I would have thought that the phone tracker would be quite a flag to show that all was not well within the marriage, then Anna could have asked Helen about it. Also, if they looked at her ‘burner’, which I believe they discovered, wouldn’t they have seen just a few calls made, including one to Jess and to the Women’s Rape Helpline? Wouldn’t those calls in themselves have sent the police looking deeper?
Wow, huge thanks for all the insights, Miss MC. You confirm my suspicion that after all the hard work and realism of the abuse storyline, we’re getting entirely fantasy legal proceedings. It’s a shame, but I’ll forgive the SWs and Editor if the outcome is good – i.e. Helen back home with her boys, Rob incarcerated or at least with an exclusion order keeping him away, and visits only under supervision.
Thanks Ms Mid City. Interesting, but also frustrating reading, in the light of what we are getting on air.
Sarahsarie, Helen’s only call to the helpline (as far as we know) was made from her own phone on the 24th March, which was the day Rob confiscated her car keys. Kirsty didn’t give her the other one until 31st March, which was the day she suggested that Helen should contact Jess, and lo and behold that very same day Helen got a chance to find Jess’s number when Rob handed her his phone to contact the pharmacy about her anti depressant prescription (while he was busy punishing Henry). So although we can’t be sure, it’s likely that Helen used the burner to call Jess, and that call will be just about the only one that Helen ever made from it
So far, no one at all has even mentioned the fact that Rob has an ex wife. Do the police; those people responsible for ensuring Henry’s welfare or Anna have any idea that she exists? If they do, why does no one want to have a word with her, and if they don’t know, why on earth not?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.