info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Facebook Martyr
37 views
Skip to first unread message
The Todal
Sep 22, 2021, 6:41:20 AM9/22/21
to
And the perpetrator was as defiant and disruptive in the courtroom as he
could possibly be. An interesting judgment:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HM-A-G-v-Hartley-Contempt-20th-September-2021.pdf
(a few extracts)
The defendant is the father of children, one of whom was the subject of
Family Court proceedings. The defendant, in flagrant contravention of a
court order and defiance of an Act of Parliament, repeatedly published
information about the case on the internet (video posts via Facebook).
Several thousand people had access to the relevant social media site. He
did so with scant regard for the welfare of the children concerned or
their mother. In the course of the video posts he was extremely abusive
to officers of the family court and the judge.
On Friday 17th September 2021, Phillip Hartley (defendant) was committed
to prison for 10 months for contempt of court. He was committed in his
absence. He was present at court, but after two attempts to bring him
into court by custodial officers, he was so disruptive that it was
impossible to produce him in the dock of court 7 at Sheffield. He could
be heard yelling that he refused to attend the court. Approximately 30
minutes before, he was abusive to the court and refused to participate
in any meaningful way. He was taken to the cells with a view to calming
himself and to attend later in the afternoon. His wilful refusal to
engage with the court and his abusive attitude to the court has been the
hallmark of his attitude throughout the entirety of this case. At first
he refused to attend any hearings, and, when brought to court under
arrest by the Tipstaff, he declined to engage with the court or approach
the case in any semblance of a civilised manner. Indeed, at one point he
stripped naked in the custody suite causing officers immense problems at
a police station, such that he could not be brought to court on that day.
It is my view the defendant has deliberately endeavoured to taunt the
court. I have overlooked the repeated rudeness and immense disrespect
towards the court. It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
was made impossible by the defendant.
I have every suspicion the defendant and others with similarly warped
and irrational views about the family justice system in this country
will regard the defendant as akin to a martyr of a certain type. He is
nothing of the sort. He has shown contempt for the court in the way I
have explained and, perhaps worst of all, has placed his children and
his vulnerable former partner in the public domain. This must have
caused the mother a high level of emotional trauma – as would be
expected. It has the potential to cause the children in the future that
same harm. That is why proceedings in the family courts about children
are the subject of protection. The defendant has displayed no regard
whatever for the welfare – past, present or future – of his children.
That is outrageous. He is nothing akin to a martyr. Only someone equally
irrational as he is, would ever think he was.
could possibly be. An interesting judgment:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HM-A-G-v-Hartley-Contempt-20th-September-2021.pdf
(a few extracts)
The defendant is the father of children, one of whom was the subject of
Family Court proceedings. The defendant, in flagrant contravention of a
court order and defiance of an Act of Parliament, repeatedly published
information about the case on the internet (video posts via Facebook).
Several thousand people had access to the relevant social media site. He
did so with scant regard for the welfare of the children concerned or
their mother. In the course of the video posts he was extremely abusive
to officers of the family court and the judge.
On Friday 17th September 2021, Phillip Hartley (defendant) was committed
to prison for 10 months for contempt of court. He was committed in his
absence. He was present at court, but after two attempts to bring him
into court by custodial officers, he was so disruptive that it was
impossible to produce him in the dock of court 7 at Sheffield. He could
be heard yelling that he refused to attend the court. Approximately 30
minutes before, he was abusive to the court and refused to participate
in any meaningful way. He was taken to the cells with a view to calming
himself and to attend later in the afternoon. His wilful refusal to
engage with the court and his abusive attitude to the court has been the
hallmark of his attitude throughout the entirety of this case. At first
he refused to attend any hearings, and, when brought to court under
arrest by the Tipstaff, he declined to engage with the court or approach
the case in any semblance of a civilised manner. Indeed, at one point he
stripped naked in the custody suite causing officers immense problems at
a police station, such that he could not be brought to court on that day.
It is my view the defendant has deliberately endeavoured to taunt the
court. I have overlooked the repeated rudeness and immense disrespect
towards the court. It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
was made impossible by the defendant.
I have every suspicion the defendant and others with similarly warped
and irrational views about the family justice system in this country
will regard the defendant as akin to a martyr of a certain type. He is
nothing of the sort. He has shown contempt for the court in the way I
have explained and, perhaps worst of all, has placed his children and
his vulnerable former partner in the public domain. This must have
caused the mother a high level of emotional trauma – as would be
expected. It has the potential to cause the children in the future that
same harm. That is why proceedings in the family courts about children
are the subject of protection. The defendant has displayed no regard
whatever for the welfare – past, present or future – of his children.
That is outrageous. He is nothing akin to a martyr. Only someone equally
irrational as he is, would ever think he was.
Les. Hayward
Sep 22, 2021, 7:08:47 AM9/22/21
to
On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
> And the perpetrator was as defiant and disruptive in the courtroom as he
> could possibly be. An interesting judgment:
>
> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HM-A-G-v-Hartley-Contempt-20th-September-2021.pdf
>
An interesting result, which leads me to wonder what happened to him
> And the perpetrator was as defiant and disruptive in the courtroom as he
> could possibly be. An interesting judgment:
>
> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/HM-A-G-v-Hartley-Contempt-20th-September-2021.pdf
>
much earlier in the proceedings...
Roger Hayter
Sep 22, 2021, 7:43:27 AM9/22/21
to
--
Roger Hayter
GB
Sep 22, 2021, 8:02:26 AM9/22/21
to
On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
> was made impossible by the defendant.
> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
> was made impossible by the defendant.
So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
issues is being sent to jail? I have no doubt that Mr Hartley was a
right PITA, and I expect that the court put up with an awful lot from
him, but is jail the right place for him?
Should there be more repercussions for Facebook, for providing the means
for him to broadcast his illegal guff?
Jon Ribbens
Sep 22, 2021, 8:19:09 AM9/22/21
to
On 2021-09-22, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
>> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
>> was made impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
> So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
> issues is being sent to jail?
No. Read paragraph 24 of the judgement - the judge explicitly considered
> On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
>> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
>> was made impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
> So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
> issues is being sent to jail?
whether the defendant was competent to stand trial and decided that he
certainly was.
Mark Goodge
Sep 22, 2021, 8:40:18 AM9/22/21
to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:37:11 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
>> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
>> was made impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
>
>So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
>issues is being sent to jail? I have no doubt that Mr Hartley was a
>right PITA, and I expect that the court put up with an awful lot from
>him, but is jail the right place for him?
The problem is that he is an adult, and considered responsible for his
>On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of
>> solicitors, the defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That
>> was made impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
>
>So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
>issues is being sent to jail? I have no doubt that Mr Hartley was a
>right PITA, and I expect that the court put up with an awful lot from
>him, but is jail the right place for him?
own actions, and has declined a psychiatric assessment. He therefore
falls into the awkward gap whereby the judge is of the opinion that he
has mental health issues, but lacks sufficiently robust evidence of that
to justify sectioning him.
On a more general note, anyone who has ever worked with repeated
low-level offenders will be familiar with this dilemma. A significant
contributory factor to their behaviour is often mental health issues.
But unless they agree to accept treatment, or plead diminished
responsibility as a mitigation, there is no alternative other than to
sentence them according to the guidelines even if it is obvious to an
onlooker (or even the court) that it would be better to find another
course of action if possible.
>Should there be more repercussions for Facebook, for providing the means
>for him to broadcast his illegal guff?
certainly hope so. This isn't merely some vaue notion of harmful or
misleading content, it's outright unlawful.
Mark
JNugent
Sep 22, 2021, 9:21:19 AM9/22/21
to
On 22/09/2021 12:37 pm, GB wrote:
> On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of solicitors, the
>> defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That was made
>> impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
> So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
> issues is being sent to jail? I have no doubt that Mr Hartley was a
> right PITA, and I expect that the court put up with an awful lot from
> him, but is jail the right place for him?
The judge would not claim to have medical expertise. The previous urging
> On 22/09/2021 11:37, The Todal wrote:
>
>> It was at one stage hoped, with the assistance of solicitors, the
>> defendant would agree to a psychiatric assessment. That was made
>> impossible by the defendant.
>
>> ... someone equally irrational as he is ...
>
> So, yet again, someone whom the judge considers to have mental health
> issues is being sent to jail? I have no doubt that Mr Hartley was a
> right PITA, and I expect that the court put up with an awful lot from
> him, but is jail the right place for him?
of the defendant to consult a mental health practitioner would surely
have simply been a step on the way to the court being able (or not) to
attribute the defendant's behaviour to the state of his mental health?
Jon Ribbens
Sep 22, 2021, 9:23:16 AM9/22/21
to
On 2021-09-22, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On Friday 17th September 2021, Phillip Hartley (defendant) was committed
> to prison for 10 months for contempt of court. He was committed in his
> absence.
Sic semper fmotlers...
> On Friday 17th September 2021, Phillip Hartley (defendant) was committed
> to prison for 10 months for contempt of court. He was committed in his
> absence.
Roger Hayter
Sep 22, 2021, 10:12:35 AM9/22/21
to
On 22 Sep 2021 at 13:18:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
It is important to understand that the English law concept off mental illness
is such that only if the mentally ill criminal is actually unable to
understand that what he does is wrong thst his *guilt* is negated. If he
knows it is wrong, even if he appears to have been instructed to do it by
hallucinatory voices, then he is guilty. There may be some mitigation of
punishment.[1] Equally, even if mental iilness is confirmed, health services
will not compulsorily admit him just because he commits a crime (such as
contempt of court or low-level harassment of ex-partner and chldren) or even
seems likely to continue to commit such crime; He has to be a *danger* to
himself or others, and there are too many man (and women) beating or harassing
their wives to section them all because they are depressed, confused,
alcoholic or frustrated. Voluntary psychiatric treatment is unlikely to solve
the problem, even in the unlikely event it is accepted.
So there really no other solution if a person, moderately mentally ill or just
over-entitled, continues to behave in this way except to imprison them.
[1] I don't understand the ins and outs of hospital orders, but they really
only apply after psychiatric assesssment, often involuntary.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
is such that only if the mentally ill criminal is actually unable to
understand that what he does is wrong thst his *guilt* is negated. If he
knows it is wrong, even if he appears to have been instructed to do it by
hallucinatory voices, then he is guilty. There may be some mitigation of
punishment.[1] Equally, even if mental iilness is confirmed, health services
will not compulsorily admit him just because he commits a crime (such as
contempt of court or low-level harassment of ex-partner and chldren) or even
seems likely to continue to commit such crime; He has to be a *danger* to
himself or others, and there are too many man (and women) beating or harassing
their wives to section them all because they are depressed, confused,
alcoholic or frustrated. Voluntary psychiatric treatment is unlikely to solve
the problem, even in the unlikely event it is accepted.
So there really no other solution if a person, moderately mentally ill or just
over-entitled, continues to behave in this way except to imprison them.
[1] I don't understand the ins and outs of hospital orders, but they really
only apply after psychiatric assesssment, often involuntary.
--
Roger Hayter
Algernon Goss-Custard
Sep 22, 2021, 10:14:12 AM9/22/21
to
Les. Hayward <l...@nospam.com> posted
We will not be allowed to know what gave rise to his sense of grievance.
It is, after all, only right and just that the world should be told of
all his own wrongdoing, and none of the wrongdoing he claims has been
done to himself. What could be fairer than that?
--
Algernon
It is, after all, only right and just that the world should be told of
all his own wrongdoing, and none of the wrongdoing he claims has been
done to himself. What could be fairer than that?
--
Algernon
Roger Hayter
Sep 22, 2021, 10:56:59 AM9/22/21
to
On 22 Sep 2021 at 14:37:42 BST, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Whatever was done to him he has to obey the rule of law. People have been sent
to prison wrongly for twenty years, but if they had reacted with contempt of
court and non-cooperation with lawful authority they would have rightly been
given a further, deserved sentence. The Raoul Moat solution is simply
inconsistent with civilised society. Parenthetically, people who try to solve
problems in his sort of why are quite likely to be considered a poor parental
role model, whatever their biological relationship to the children.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
to prison wrongly for twenty years, but if they had reacted with contempt of
court and non-cooperation with lawful authority they would have rightly been
given a further, deserved sentence. The Raoul Moat solution is simply
inconsistent with civilised society. Parenthetically, people who try to solve
problems in his sort of why are quite likely to be considered a poor parental
role model, whatever their biological relationship to the children.
--
Roger Hayter
Mark Goodge
Sep 22, 2021, 12:43:14 PM9/22/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard
Sep 24, 2021, 2:16:40 AM9/24/21
to
Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> posted
very convenient for them to do so, much more convenient than to allow
details of their own decisions to be published.
--
Algernon
>> We will not be allowed to know what gave rise to his sense of grievance.
>> It is, after all, only right and just that the world should be told of
>> all his own wrongdoing, and none of the wrongdoing he claims has been
>> done to himself. What could be fairer than that?
>
>Whatever was done to him he has to obey the rule of law. People have been sent
>to prison wrongly for twenty years, but if they had reacted with contempt of
>court and non-cooperation with lawful authority they would have rightly been
>given a further, deserved sentence. The Raoul Moat solution is simply
>inconsistent with civilised society. Parenthetically, people who try to solve
>problems in his sort of why are quite likely to be considered a poor parental
>role model, whatever their biological relationship to the children.
I expect the family courts are likely to consider them as such. It's
>> It is, after all, only right and just that the world should be told of
>> all his own wrongdoing, and none of the wrongdoing he claims has been
>> done to himself. What could be fairer than that?
>
>Whatever was done to him he has to obey the rule of law. People have been sent
>to prison wrongly for twenty years, but if they had reacted with contempt of
>court and non-cooperation with lawful authority they would have rightly been
>given a further, deserved sentence. The Raoul Moat solution is simply
>inconsistent with civilised society. Parenthetically, people who try to solve
>problems in his sort of why are quite likely to be considered a poor parental
>role model, whatever their biological relationship to the children.
very convenient for them to do so, much more convenient than to allow
details of their own decisions to be published.
--
Algernon
Roger Hayter
Sep 24, 2021, 4:46:41 AM9/24/21
to
On 23 Sep 2021 at 16:33:56 BST, "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com>
Yes. Two separate issues, though they do interact. But the people who protest
against secrecy are often (not always!) the type of people who always become
aggressive when they don't get their own way. I agree that the assumption that
blanket secrecy is always in the interest of children is a flawed assumption.
The family court should operate publicly and on the record unless a
particular harm can be objectively demonstrated.
--
Roger Hayter
against secrecy are often (not always!) the type of people who always become
aggressive when they don't get their own way. I agree that the assumption that
blanket secrecy is always in the interest of children is a flawed assumption.
The family court should operate publicly and on the record unless a
particular harm can be objectively demonstrated.
--
Roger Hayter
0 new messages