What's this, you ask, has the Mail gone all liberal and started objecting to courts like SIAC that try purported terrorists in secret and without letting them see the evidence against them?
Of course not.
Jailed in secret - for trying to rescue her father from care home where she believed he would die
Wanda Maddocks is first person to be imprisoned by Court of Protection
It settles the affairs of people too ill to make their own decisions
Jailed because she ignored orders not to try to remove her father from home
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2ROBYNuyH
A judge ruled that she should go to prison for five months for contempt of court even though she was not present or represented by a lawyer.
Translated: she was given due notice of the hearing, didn't bother to get legal representation or turn up, and is surprised that the court didn't view that as a good reason for letting her carry on breaking court orders.
Miss Maddocks, who served six weeks of her sentence, was jailed because she ignored the court’s orders not to try to remove her father John from Park Hall care home in Bentilee, a suburb of Stoke on Trent
That's her very seriously ill father who she wanted to take away from the care home where they had unnecessary facilities like, oh, expert doctors and nurses, specialist equipment, medication, rubbish like that.
She was condemned for incidents including taking the 80-year-old dementia sufferer to a court hearing and to see a solicitor.
That's her very seriously ill father who she took out to a court hearing where he wouldn't have a clue what the hell was going on and would only become distressed. And whom she took to the solicitor for a purpose that doesn't seem to have been explained (change of will perhaps?) in circumstances where (a) the solicitor could have gone to see him in the home and (b) it was an utterly pointless exercise because he did not have capacity to make any decisions about his legal affairs.
She was also censured for producing a leaflet to try to publicise details of the case
Yes, that's a leaflet about her seriously ill, helpless father whose picture she wanted to post all round the neighbourhood
She was also censured for
giving her father a wooden cross ‘to ward off evil’ in the care home.
Translation: she's batshit. But the Mail is shocked that the court didn't think her father should be left in her care.
Judge Martin Cardinal merely went through the motions of observing open justice when he handed down his sentence.
He ordered the doors of his courtroom in Birmingham to be unlocked and told ushers to announce in the corridor that members of the public were free to come in.
Translation: this is standard procedure. The judgment was given in open court, and the Mail is miffed because its reporters didn't find out about it at the time.
But there was no wider announcement of the judgment and no-one who was not directly involved is thought to have attended.
Same as happens all day, every day in every court in the country. The fact that members of the public didn't happen to attend doesn't make it a secret hearing.
After a few months Miss Maddocks’ brother Ivan took him out of the care home for lunch.
Miss Maddocks was alerted and flew her father to Turkey, where she owns a number of properties
WTF? What was she "alerted" to? Was this the first time she noticed her father wasn't at home? There seems to be a strong implication that neither caring child had bothered to visit during those "few months".
Nothing, you notice, in that report indicating that there was anything wrong with the father's care or any substance to the daughter's belief that he was in danger. Nor indeed any reason indicating why she thought that taking him out would prevent an elderly, confused, ill man from reaching the end of his life.
And of course, it's another instance of those cases like the reports of children being taken into care where the Mail takes entirely cynical advantage of the fact that duties of confidentiality prevent the other side of the picture being presented.