Friday, January 26, 2007

Louise Campbell refused Legal Aid - Fred Jackson given Legal Aid - what is going on !

My previous post on who foots the bill in international child abduction asked the question which the British taxpayer ought to know.

Louise Campbell, has a child Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana abducted to Pakistan - that this was an abduction is a finding of fact by the court in Pakistan and in Scotland -it had to be as a consequence of the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol, a simplified version of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which Pakistan has not acceded to.

Louise Campbell has "acquiesced" in the abduction - in plain English, she's given up - because she is potless.

No money = No lawyer, no airfare, no accomodation, NO JUSTICE !

How much has the British taxpayer contributed to her effort to recover an abducted child ?

Answer: £0.00

So here we are with a British/Pakistani child abducted from the UK to Pakistan and we pay £0.00 - and Louise Campbell cannot carry on the legal process to have Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana returned to her country of habitual residence for her future to be determined - that is, a Scottish court to decide on whether Louise Campbell or Sajed Rana should have primary residency of Molly/Misbah.

Now riddle me this - an American, Fred Jackson abducted two Scottish boys to Texas, I can say this because it is a finding of fact by Judge Lopez in Texas, US. The children have been returned to Scotland in the care of their mother, Angela Jackson under the Hague Convention for proceedings to take place as to who should be the primary residential parent, access, child support and so on.

Fred Jackson is an international child abductor according to the US court.

Fred has a Scottish solicitor representing him in the custody proceedings in Scotland.

Who is paying for his lawyer ?

The British taxpayer through the Legal Aid fund that has issued and extended a Legal Aid certificate. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ !

So we will not pay for a British parent to recover their child but we will pay for a foreign abductor of two British children to come here.

Someone please explain in ethical and moral terms the logic or fairness in this situation because The Secretary of the President at the Royal Courts of Justice cannot:


Dear Mr Hindle

Given the differences in funding mechanisms (for example in England and Wales some people would be eligible for legal aid, others would not) in different countries. I am unable to assist you any further in this subject.

Miss Sam Sprague

Private Secretary to the
President of Family Division
and Head of Family Justice


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: karlhindle@aol.com [mailto:karlhindle@aol.com]
Sent: 25 January 2007 14:58
To: Sprague, Sam
Cc: stevesmithpress@btinternet.com; gail.cameron@the-sun.co.uk
Subject: Re: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query



Dear Miss Sprague,

My apologies for referring to you as "Mr", I'm sure that must occur often in correspondence exchanges.

You are designated as the contact in the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol information and I shall be grateful for an answer.

The questions relating to the cost incurred by non-UK taxpayers abroad cannot be answered by the Legal Services Commission as I am sure you are aware.

I look forward to receiving answers to my queries.

Yours sincerely

s/Karl Hindle

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam.Sprague@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
To: karlhindle@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 2.49PM
Subject: FW: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query

Dear Mr Hindle

As all the points raised in your email message relate to legal costs and therefore the spending of public funds, your enquiry is best directed to the Legal Services Commission at:

85 Gray’s inn Road
London
WC1X 8TX

0207 759 0000

Miss Sam Sprague
Private Secretary to the
President of Family Division
and Head of Family Justice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: karlhindle@aol.com [mailto:karlhindle@aol.com]
Sent: 25 January 2007 01:55
To: Sam.Sprague@courtservice.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: stevesmithpress@btinternet.com; gail.cameron@the-sun.co.uk
Subject: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query



24th January 2007


Mr S Sprague

The Family Division Lawyer,
President's Chambers,
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL



Dear Mr Sprague,

International Child Abduction Legal Costs

With regards to the operation of the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol (the "Protocol") would you be so kind to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in Pakistan, will the left behind British parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the Pakistani taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in the UK, will the left behind Pakistani parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the British taxpayer ?

With regards to The Hague Covention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("The Hague Convention") would you be so kind as to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the US under The Hague Convention in the United Kingdom, will the left behind US parents' legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the British taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the UK under The Hague Convention in the United States, will the left behind UK parents legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the US taxpayer ?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Karl Hindle

PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk


1 comment:

Legal process outsourcing(LPO) said...

Thanks for sharing and keep posting more new information.
Regards,
http://www.saibposervices.com/Outsourcing_for_Legal_Projects.aspx

Legal services