- This topic has 28 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With regard to Helen having some sort of psychological assessment, or even evidence from a professional about her state of mind at some point during her marriage, I seem to recall Rob insisting that she go to see a psychiatrist and she had a few appointments. Or am I dreaming that? If so, wouldn’t s/he have something relevant to say? Or was it mooted, but never actually actioned? Good grief! My memory is so rubbish!
According to an article the Beeb posted on Facebook, the judge could remove the offending juror and the trial could carry on with just 11. I personally hope this happens rather than starting the whole horrible process again as I *think* Helen has a chance of being acquitted. Who could still believe Titchy nob after hearing Kirsty’s anger and Helen and Jess’ heartbreaking testimonies?
So apparently the Archers is an hour long on Sunday. Not sure how I feel about that. While I would normally relish extra helpings of everyone’s favourite docudrama, my nerves are in shreds after listening this week and I’m not sure I can take a whole 60 minutes of this tension and suspense!
What does everyone else think?
Sarahsarie, Helen did go and see a psychiatrist on Rob’s insistence and was prescribed antidepressants (which she didn’t take because she didn’t want to harm the baby). Not sure why she wasn’t called as a witness – maybe the prosecution didn’t think it was relevant?
I’m betting that she’ll be found guilty, but have it overturned on appeal. Not based on any legal intuition or knowledge, just that it would prolong the drama for a few more months, meanwhile as news of the rape/abuse gets around the village Rob will be shunned by (almost) everyone.
On the trial itself I’m surprised no one mentioned Rob’s relatively recent acquisition of Henry as a “son”. I think there was another thread on that when it happened, but if the Crown is going to raise questions about Helen’s choice to become pregnant the way she did, surely it’s not right that Henry is being presented as Rob’s son as if he’d brought Henry up from birth.
I thought Rob’s father’s behaviour was pretty ridiculous. Sure there are people who think the way he does, but very few verbalise those views, and surely he would realise to shout out in court like that would do more harm than good.
Miss Mid City, what’s the legal situation with the rape allegations? At what point does Helen make a formal complaint to get them investigated and Rob charged? Or is raising the rapes in court enough to start an investigation?
For Alison Johnson, no, social services are unlikely to be in the criminal court for this trial. However, the outcome is going to be highly relevant to the family proceedings that have started.
“Alarm bells” should have been ringing with social services and CAFCASS (Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Services) who represent Henry and Jack/Gideon in the family law case because of the factual background of this case: Pat and Tony are the maternal grandparents of Henry (and Jack) and they’re seeking a Child Arrangements Order that the children live with them while their daughter (the mother of the children) is tried in the criminal court for a serious assault upon the father. Allegations of domestic abuse and sexual violence may need to be investigated and adjudicated upon in the family proceedings because they suggest there are safeguarding issues and a risk to the children’s safety with a violent father.
Social services and CAFCASS will know that the trial is taking place and will want to know the verdict. The family court will probably also want to see some of the evidence that has been presented in the criminal trial and to do so, it will make an order for disclosure.
Henry won’t necessarily be taken away from Rob. That would require social services to take immediate action to place Henry in foster care because there is an imminent risk of significant harm. But remember, nothing has been proved against Rob yet – he hasn’t even been questioned by the police about any allegations. Helen made her disclosure about the extent of the abuse she suffered during the marriage when she was in the witness box. Social Services and CAFCASS can be excused for not taking action about something they knew nothing about.
The family law case concerns Pat and Tony making an application for a Child Arrangements Order to have Henry (and presumably Jack) live with them. Rob is the defendant in that application but I think I’m right that he has a cross-application which is in the same terms: he wants a Child Arrangements Order to confirm that Henry lives with him. There are no grounds for an “emergency appeal” as such because there’s been no decision.
Pat and Tony’s case basically is that Henry would be better off living with them. They’ve now heard allegations in criminal court that Rob is a rapist and perpetrator of domestic violence. As I said, this is highly relevant to the family case and they’ll want to make those allegations before the family judge. It all gets very messy. Remember, Rob isn’t on trial here: Helen is. Within family proceedings, a judge might want to hold a fact finding hearing to get to the bottom of whether or not the allegations of domestic abuse can be proved to the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) rather than the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt); and consider the impact upon the children’s welfare. However, this also depends on whether Helen is found guilty or not. If Helen is acquitted, I’m sure Pat and Tony would withdraw their application. Helen would then make her own application against Rob. If Helen is found guilty, Rob could continue pursuing his case against Pat and Tony. However, he might be subject to police investigation into the allegations raised by Helen (coercive control, physical assault and rape). This might lead to criminal charges. In those circumstances, the family court would probably investigate whether Henry is safe in Rob’s care pending a criminal trial where Rob is the defendant. Henry might then be removed from Rob’s care. If Rob is eventually subject to a prosecution and found guilty, then the family proceedings become “academic” and unnecessary. He can’t pursue his Child Arrangements Order and Pat and Tony won’t need to pursue theirs.
That’s all a bit convoluted … !
And, to answer Landless Gentry’s question, I’m not sure about Rob and a criminal investigation into rape. I think there’s only going to be enough for the police to start an investigation if Helen is prepared to make a statement. It’s not enough just for her to blurt something out in a trial. It’s up to the police to look into the allegations and take action.
The dramatic way Helen revealed the extent of the abuse she suffered made the whole thing more complicated for my poor little brain – I’m not a criminal practitioner! – even though I saw it coming.
My standard preliminary view is that the police investigate and the CPS prosecute. The police might not see merit in taking the matter further. As for the CPS, they only prosecute if it’s in the public interest and there’s a reasonable chance of a conviction. Prosecuting alleged perpetrators of domestic violence is very probably in the public interest but the prospect of a conviction is less clear cut. If Helen is convicted of attempted murder or section 18 wounding, I think the CPS would struggle to present her as a sympathetic and credible complainant. On the other hand, if she’s acquitted I think the CPS might still struggle with a prosecution because of the publicity. Apparently, this has been a high profile case in the Borsetshire region (we’ve heard about the juror posting on Twitter and the press reporting which prompted Jess to come forward and so on).
But I suppose there’s nothing to stop Jess making a formal complaint … !
Indeed, phew!
Thanks Miss Mid City, interesting.
What a terrible episode though! I got up early to listen to the podcast before work here in Aus and feel very let down! Twelve Angry Men this wasn’t.
All the prejudice and rudeness in the jury room and the stereotypical class stuff. Sure, I haven’t lived in england for a decade or so, but people don’t really treat each other like that do they? What happened to civility, decency and politeness? It all felt very false. And then to go from majority guilty with some pretty entrenched positions to not guilty with no hint of how or why the key guilty jurors changed their minds was ridiculous. Anyway I’m pleased this phase of the story is over!
Right come on Helen, divorce the bastard!
I’ve read that the family case is due to be heard this week which comes as a surprise to me. Come to think of it, I thought this started as Tony and Pat wanting Henry to live with them with Rob opposing them. Tony and Pat can now withdraw their application – they don’t want to take Henry from Helen. Now Helen has been found not guilty but has made serious allegations about domestic abuse, they should be dealt with by way of a fact finding hearing. We’re not in a position to have a final hearing about the children in my view.
And if anyone uses calls it “a custody case” or talks about “access rights” they should be reprimanded and made to stand outside the courtroom. “Residence” and “contact” are still broadly acceptable terms but no proper lawyer says “custody” or “access rights” when they mean “Child Arrangements Order”.
Hi all. Just a point about the jury. I understand your comment Landlessgentry about the jury and yes there were some clunky stereotypes in there but they are stereotypes for a reason and of late I think people have treated each other like that.
Quite apart from the abhorrent views of some on the Jury there was the consistent talking over the top of the women in the room from the men (particularly Jackie who could not get time to make the most valid point in the whole discussion). I live with this daily as I work in a male dominated environment where I get mansplained a lot!
I’ve just read this article and I think it reflects what I think perfectly I’ll re tweet it on the Twitters as well.
If parental responsibility is the same as adoption why does it exist?
I found this on a family law site
What are the effects of a Step Parent Parental Responsibility Agreement?
Here’s what it doesn’t do:-It doesn’t remove Parental Responsibility from the absent biological parent
It doesn’t give you a greater say than the absent parent in the child’s upbringing (but it does give you an equal say)
It doesn’t make you liable to pay maintenance for the child
If you separate from the child’s parent/move out, it doesn’t give you an automatic right to see the childMissMidCity, surely we can talk about custardy in this case, if not custody? 😉
With my limited experience of the legal system, yesterday’s episode seemed incredibly far-fetched, but God knows the Bridge Farm Archers deserve some good luck at the moment. As someone said on Twitter though, this paves the way for some sort of child abduction storyline. Rob believes both boys are his and that he was bringing them up in the best way possible. We know he’s rash and impulsive, and seems to feel genuine emotion when the boys are taken away from him. Could he sneakily meet Henry at the school gates? Arseula could drive the getaway car…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.