Formal complaint about Dame Anna Pauffley in the Hampstead abuse case

JCIO = Judicial Conduct Investigations Office

You can complain by email and by form. The form asks you to choose between ‘professional misconduct’ and ‘misuse of judicial status’. We think it’s both.


6 thoughts on “Formal complaint about Dame Anna Pauffley in the Hampstead abuse case

  1. That would be the Alan Wrightson who thinks that this case is linked to the appearance of a UFO in Sheffield in 1997 through time travel and the coincidence that there was a bloke named Clark then and the clerk of the court now is also named Clark. He should have mentioned it in his complaint. I’m sure it would have helped.


  2. All praise to those who, in the face of threats and defamation, have represented the kid’s interests, after they have been failed so calamitously and disreputably by the police, social services and courts, but somehow in the face of what can only described as a wicked inversion of justice, the effort to overturn the judgement needs to be coldly calculated and co-ordinated. Widespread public outrage needs to be channelled and focused if it is to be effective in its aims. These courageous individuals need all the support we can give them. After all we are sending them out as “sheep in the midst of wolves and therefore must be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” As the whole case turns on the voracity and accuracy of the children’s testimony, effort should be directed as you suggest, towards independent professional analysis to establish this fact, particularly as the Judge has so misdirected herself on this point. She had no lawful right to treat it so flippantly and to put it down to malign coaching with such flimsy evidence to support it. Nor should the children’s words be dismissed as ‘hearsay’. As far as I am aware that term relates to ‘second-hand’ and ‘third-party’ reportage, whereas most of the children’s consists of first-hand witnessing and direct experience, which is not only evidentially admissible but also compelling. Is there not a top-notch barrister, moved as we are, by the blatant injustice of this case, prepared to act pro-bono for these children and appeal Pauffley’s epic failure?


  3. Four million ‘shell’ companies based on Finchley Road?! Uncovering links to government, secret intelligence, slush funds, fake virtual companies, fraud investment, money laundering and ‘boiler rooms’. Important insights into the international criminal connections linked to this address, the area of London and national politics. It may even throw light on why it was so important to close down the Hampstead allegations.



  4. There follows my public complaint to the “Judicial Conduct Investigations Office” regarding Judge Pauffley’s handling of the case. Hopefully the more that do so the more likely the issue will be considered by others. The on-line form can be accessed here:

    “Re: P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding)
    Before Mrs Justice Pauffley. (Case Number: [2015] EWFC 26 (Fam)
    Case No: ZC14C00315)

    I wish to (publicly) make the following complaint(s). I am not a party to the proceedings although I have followed the case reasonably closely and as a concerned member of the public wish to formalise and record my objection in the prescribed manner. Although criticism might be directed at public bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for the education and protection of children and the investigation of crime, as a senior High Court Judge, Mrs Justice Pauffrey assigned to this case, had an over-arching duty to apply the law and do justice to the parties involved, which she conspicuously failed to do.

    The reasons for this assessment are as follows:-

    (a) She demonstrated partisanship and bias in the way she controlled proceedings, in that she did not ensure “equality of arms” from the parties concerned, insofar as throughout, the mother did not appear and was not permitted representation by her ‘Makensie friend’. Nor did she allow the chosen mother’s representative even to attend to witness proceedings. To allow the remaining parties to the case to be represented – it is reported – by some sixteen legal personnel, without the mother having any, breached the rules of natural justice and equality of treatment.
    (b) The whole tenor of her published judgement and conclusions far exceeds the evidence on which she claims to base it and is clearly slanted against the mother and in favour of the father. As such it demonstrates unjustified bias. Indeed it is quite contrary to the evidence! Previous court judgements had confirmed the mother to be good and safe, whilst the father had a track record of violence and dubious behaviour. Yet Judge Pauffrey, incredibly concludes “on a balance of probability” quite the opposite, without supporting evidence, that the father and others should be exonerated whilst the mother was guilty of “torture”. Not only is this by every judicial standard, irrational, it is partisan and unwise.
    (c) In publishing her seven conclusions in para. 165 of her judgement, she has exceeded her brief and competence by making assertions on criminal matters without being constrained by criminal rules of proof and evidence. She may have undermined on-going investigations – we are told – into allegations of sexual assault. This cannot be acceptable.
    (d) She demonstrated bias and poor judgement by effectively rubbishing and rejecting all the videoed witness statements by the children as unreliable, whilst paradoxically accepting their so-called ‘retraction’ as reliable. Nor apparently was she prepared to take evidence from the children directly. This defies all logic and best practice in matters of alleged child abuse.
    (e) Finally her sweeping condemnation of the public as ‘foolish, evil and/or perverted’ is unwarranted and a clear breach of her oath, not to demonstrate ill will to any.

    Complaint Acknowledgement
    Thank you, your complaint has been received successfully.
    Your temporary reference number is 4427.
    Your complaint will now be allocated to a caseworker for consideration. We aim to provide you with an initial response within 15 working days.
    In the meantime, if you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s