Court appearance 9 May 2003
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ACTION FOR JUSTICE
The hearing of Case No MA2 18811 in the matter of Morris v Cafcass will take place at 10.00 am on Friday 9 May 2003 at Manchester County Court, Crown Square, Manchester.
The action is being brought under the provisions of Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 14 grants the right to rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of inaccurate data.
Additionally, and very importantly Section 14 allows for rectification, blocking, erasure or destruction of N.B. "which contain an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.
Pause for a moment to think on these things in relation to a welfare report and the judgements handed down by nerds who base their opinions on inaccuracies. We all know how opinions are based on their ignorance, inadequacies, prejudices etc but inaccuracies of fact are much more vulnerable and open to attack.
If there actually existed any justice in this country then a dispute over inaccurate data in a welfare report should and could be dealt with as easily as inaccuracies in a credit rating report.
I should also mention here the importance of Section 13 of the DPA which makes provision for compensation to be paid to anyone who has suffered damage and distress as a direct result of inaccurate data!
Paul's original application was submitted last year. He alleged that a welfare report regarding contact contained inaccurate data.
Cafcass have indeed admitted in correspondence that the report contained inaccurate data and of course the inaccurate data have been presented to the court. (Presentin evidence not caring whether it be true or false).
Nevertheless, Cafcass and the Judiciary have set out on a "stuff you little man, you think you have rights under the DPA but watch us traduce your rights and kick you out of the courtroom because we have the power and you are merely pond life"
In other words, the same standards of justice that we all enjoy in this wonderful democracy called England.
At a 20 minute first hearing which was supposed to be a directions hearing, without warning, the judge turned it into a full hearing hoping to catch Paul unprepared.
That move failed because we had anticipated this and Paul was prepared for the move.
He started to present his case but was stopped by the judge who said there wasn't time to hear Paul's case and he already knew Paul's case.
Paul pointed out to the judge that he couldn't possibly know his case because his case was still in his briefcase and he hadn't had the opportunity to present his case.
Put quite simply, the judge refused to hear the case.
He then went on to say that he was ruling against him on the grounds of the supposed (but not actual) precedent of P v Wozencroft.
I divert here to say that P v Wozencroft is a judgement that a friend (?) of ours, a member of our original Gang of Three DPA pioneers, achieved (without our input ) on his own. Damn and blast him.
Since the enemy succeeded we have been bedevilled by P v Wozencroft. We find ourselves fighting on the back foot and P v Wozy will probably figure centre stage on 9 May.
The judge, who said he didn't have time to hear Paul then went on to refuse leave to appeal and then spent a large part of the rest of the time asking Counsel for Cafcass what his costs were !
Paul, being a Lancastrian, persisted with an attempt to mount an appeal but permission to appeal was refused on the grounds of P v Wozencroft.
Paul appealed against the no appeal citing Human Rights issue - Article 6.
Finally he was granted an Oral Hearing and that is what May 9 is supposed to be.
For this hearing, which according to law is supposed to be in the Queen's Bench Division because Data Protection issues should be held there (see Naomi Campbell v MGN) is, if 'they' can get away with it, going to be held before 2 judges, one of whom is a Family Court Division judge.
The enemy need to have the action heard in the Family Court Division because, as you well know, that Division is the least open and accountable division of the system.
The crux of the matter, and this is what frightens them, the Data Protection Act takes no notice of Family Law but concerns itself solely with inaccuracies.
If we can succeed in erasing, blocking, rectifying the inaccurate data in a welfare report then the welfare report would be valueless and unusable by a judge.
And of course it would be followed by a claim for compensation.
I'm afraid I haven't set down all the ins and outs of the case and all the points of law. It would take all day.
If there is anything that is not clear do please ask.
If it presents a viewable picture don't hesitate to circulate and appeal for members to come along and support on 9 May.
Tom Quill.