http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4112058

By John Aston, PA News

A Fathers 4 Justice campaigner today angrily refused to defend himself
against moves by the Attorney General to punish him for revealing full
details of a private county court judgment relating to contact with his son.

Dr Michael Pelling, of Forest Gate, east London, who stands accused of
contempt of court, condemned the hearing as "unfair".

With Fathers 4 Justice supporters clapping and cheering, he left the High
Court in London after being refused permission to cross-examine prosecution
witnesses in the case, which could involve a prison sentence.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, says the 55-year-old, a co-founder
of the Campaign for Open Justice, named parties and published "sensitive
details" about family proceedings in breach of strict privacy laws.

Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Pitchford, said full reasons for
the decision not to allow cross-examination would be given when the court
rules in the near future on whether or not Dr Pelling is guilty of contempt.

Dr Pelling wanted to cross-examine a barrister employed by the Attorney
General's office during the preparation of the case against him and an IT
expert employed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the department
charged with running the court systems in England and Wales.

Today, on the second day of the hearing, after an adjournment to consider
his position, a furious Dr Pelling told the court: "I am not continuing with
this case."

He told the judges: "You may proceed in due course to give whatever judgment
you wish to give.

"I am quite happy to appear for sentence. It is not necessary to send the
tipstaff to arrest me."

Lord Justice Laws advised Dr Pelling that it would be in his best interests
to submit his defence and said the court had not yet come to any conclusion
about whether or not he was guilty of contempt.

But Dr Pelling refused to remain in court and the judge announced that
judgment would be given "in due course".

Outside court he said: "The fundamental unfairness is that this is a
criminal trial, but the court was not prepared to have the evidence against
me read out and reported in open court and exhibits made available for
public inspection.

"The last straw was that I am not even going to be allowed to cross examine
my accusers."

"The principle in criminal cases is that justice must be seen to be done,
and that is a fundamental human right."

Yesterday Dr Pelling accused Lord Justice Laws of showing bias against him
in past rulings and called for him to be replaced by another judge.

He read out an article from satirical magazine Private Eye which was
critical of the judge.

But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Pitchford, refused to step
down and said he would give his reasons after hearing the full committal
application.

Despite Dr Pelling's objections, the judges ordered that details of the Bow
County Court judgment at the centre of the alleged contempt must not be
revealed in reports of today's hearing.

Website and email addresses giving access to the judgment should also not be
disclosed, pending any further order the court might make.

But the judges said there was no court order preventing the press and media
now identifying Dr Pelling's son, Alexander, now aged 14, who is a King's
scholar at Eton.

Andrew Caldecott QC, appearing for the Attorney General, argued that the
case raises important issues of principle.

Privacy laws governing family cases - widely attacked by groups such as
Fathers 4 Justice - must be obeyed, even though they are controversial, he
said.

Dr Pelling published details from the county court ruling in Contact, a
journal he edited for the organisation East London Fathers, in April 2003.
His article was also published on the internet.

Dr Pelling contends that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, now enshrined in domestic law by the 1998 Human Rights Act, demands
that judgments "shall be pronounced publicly".

A comment in Contact on the decision to publish the judgment in full said
secrecy laws were there to protect a "corrupt" judicial system.

It was also to prevent "the mother-custody default from being overthrown and
to silence the voices of the growing ranks of embittered fathers".

Thank's to AH for link.

--
Men are everywhere that matters!





--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 6:44:16 AM ---