England's Devastated Family Musa Trial Day 1

Judge imposes a ‘Blanket Ban’ as he put it on all public reporting of these proceedings; but then we're not in London...

(LONDON) - Thanks to all those who turned up at Wood Green Crown Court on Day 1 of the Musas’ criminal Trial. We were in Court 2 under Judge Patrick and Court 2 only had seating for some 10 persons in the Public Gallery and we were way more than 10 and had to sit 2-3 to a seat and some were dismissed from the courtroom altogether.

In the lunch-hour we petitioned the Judge to get us moved to a bigger courtroom, with the result that we’ll be in Court 5 from tomorrow morning which is slightly roomier but not much, if memory serves.

1) he wants to keep strict time in these proceedings in order that the case will not have to run into 5, 6 or even 7 weeks over the original 4 allocated. Every day will start at 10 am sharp and run to 4.30 pm (might occasionally overrun to 4.45 if a key witness is still not quite finished) ;

b) in deference to Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the RCJ Family Division, he is imposing a ‘Blanket Ban’ as he put it on all public reporting of these proceedings, including on the internet. He was informed that reporting was still going on on the Gloria Musa word press site and immediately went on line to check that, then mumbled something about ‘contempt of court’ and ‘imprisonment’. By the same token he absolutely would not allow anyone in the public gallery to take notes unless they could show professional reasons for doing so. A few requests then went up to his bench from members of the press including a Daily Mail reporter.

I of course didn’t qualify for a dispensation so couldn’t take notes, therefore it will not be possible to go into much detail in my daily reports, simply to give an idea of the way things are unfolding and what has been chiefly at issue day by day. This may work out better as I have a reasonable grasp of the case by now having helped the Musas as a McKenzie friend in the family proceedings, so will hopefully be able to follow reasonably easily and pick out the important points.

LB Haringey is being represented by a Ms Smith (whom I haven’t yet been able to identify out of dozens of legal Smiths but will ask her first name tomorrow) with DC Sewart and a female colleague sitting immediately behind her, while the Musa’s legal team is headed by David Owusu http://www.1mcb.com/people/owusu-yianoma_d.htm and Raana Sheikh http://www.mtlchambers.com/people/davey_c.htm assisted by Don Marcus of AB Mackenzie Solicitors.

Chiwar and Gloria sat quietly in the dock, having been told firmly by the judge they can’t intervene (Chiwar put his hand up a couple of times). Most of the day was allocated to selecting the jury out of some 15 (?) volunteers and 10 (?) ‘conscripted’ potential jurors and making sure those shortlisted for jury-panelling down to the final 12 are not connected in any way with Haringey Social Services, Child Protection service or Contact service. Counsel for the Defence objected to one lady being from LB Barnet Social Services, the Musas having resided in Barnet prior to coming to live in Haringey. The judge tetchily asked him to substantiate why this posed a problem? and didn’t uphold the objection.

With a kind of wry grin, as if attempting to be humorous, Judge Patrick then told the jurors that they too are not allowed to go online to research the case and were reminded that 3 jurors have recently been sent to jail for doing just that.

The jury were then sent off home till tomorrow and the rest of the day’s proceedings were given over to discussing the programme for the week and the judge finding out if both sides were ready to go, with bundles complete and expert witnesses lined up? Mr Owusu asked to be supplied with missing pages 1-3 of the key medical bundle relating to the 6th child Q’s hospitalisation on 28th June. Since the events of this day had led to her being removed from her parents and the parents being arrested and charged, it was crucial to have all the pages of this particular bundle. Ms Smith said that all the relevant pages were there but had been “re-calibrated” . This was laid on one side for the moment but further questions will undoubtedly be asked.

It appears that the focus of this week will be on the events of 28th June 2011 as this concerns the most deeply ‘criminal’ of the multiple charges against the parents, that not only have they abused and neglected their older children, they have apparently attempted to murder their baby. In the latest family proceedings which I attended as a McKenzie friend, Hon Justice Charles reiterated firmly that he was proceeding with the case according to how the facts before him by that time stood, Chiwar or Gloria or both having been ‘found’ by Sir Nicholas Wall, the top Family judge, to have committed acts of cruelty on their 5 older children and to have attempted to poison their 6th child, Baby Q. For this reason Charles J had seen no option but to uphold Haringey’s and the Guardian’s urgent insistence that the 7th child, Baby N born in prison on 9th March 2012 should be removed from his mother immediately at birth and denied breast-milk since it is now established ‘fact’ that this mother is a danger to her babies as well as to her older children.

Hence the issue of Baby Q having been wilfully drugged or poisoned by her parents raises the present proceedings to the level of a murder or attempted murder inquiry, therefore this will be dealt with first in line before the other issues of child cruelty & neglect which although serious, are not deemed to have been life-threatening.

The judge adjourned around 3 pm, enabling the Defence team to spend useful time down in the cells with their clients and also to consult a supporter who is a Biomedical specialist, who although she insisted she was not an expert, thanks to her scientific & medical knowledge was able to interpret the medical notes and shed a lot of very useful and timely light on what had gone on in St Thomas’ hospital re. Baby Q on 28th June 2011. Defence’s own expert witness/Toxicologist had already disappointed them in concluding from her clearly less than adequate perusal of the medical log for 28th June that the parents had indeed administered toxic substances to the baby very early that morning, in fact at 5 am. Searching questions will now be put to this Toxicologist who may have to revise what she has been intending to present to the court this week and be forced to actually study the medical notes a good deal more carefully than she has so far done.

Tim King in 2008, covering the Iraq War

Tim King: Salem-News.com Editor and Writer

Tim King has more than twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. Tim is Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor. His background includes covering the war in Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007, and reporting from the Iraq war in 2008. Tim is a former U.S. Marine.

Tim holds awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing from The Associated Press the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, the Oregon Confederation of Motorcycle Clubs, Electronic Media Association and The Red Cross In a personal capacity, Tim has written 2,026 articles as of March 2012 for Salem-News.com since the new format designed by Matt Lintz was launched in December, 2005.

Serving readers with news from all over the globe, Tim's life is literally encircled by the endless news flow published by Salem-News.com, where more than 100 writers contribute stories from 20+ countries and regions.

Tim specializes in writing about political and military developments worldwide with an emphasis on Palestine and Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. Marines. You can write to Tim at this address: tim@salem-news.com. Visit Tim's Facebook page (facebook.com/TimKing.Reporter)

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

theUKhasbecomeajoke July 29, 2012 9:22 am (Pacific time)

The UK Family Courts can never allow the press access to its "proceedings".
.
I endured a "Fact Finding" hearing which made absolutely no sense. During August 2010 my hearing was in front of Circuit Judge Rylance at Epsom County Court. It was supposed to take a full day, but was restricted to 4 short hours.
.
My case has allegations from both sides, basically my relationship with my ex-partner and mother of one of my children ended August 2009after she realised she was in financial difficulty (debts of over £40,000) . She thought she needed to return to her parents' house and convince me to sell the house we owned together. Needles to say... Her urgency was increased even more because she had a credit card with /£10,000 owed and the interest free period expiring 3 weeks later.
.
When I disagreed, she used our child as a weapon then resorted to intimidation.
.
To support my allegations, I have submitted in circuit judge Rylance words a "voluminous" bundle of evidence which strongly supports my allegations and very convincing refuted my ex's. Because the evidence I submitted were voluminous judge John Rylance ignored it all.
.
During the hearing none of my allegations were even mentioned, they were all dismissed a form of intimidation. My evidence included:
- joint bank account statements
- evidence of my ex's failed credit card application
- evidence of my ex's desperate telephone calls to 6 different lenders 2 nights before she moved out
- evidence of confirmation from HMRC that I was not entitled to a £14,000 tax rebate. Which was posted by HMRC 6 days before my ex left our family home.
- emails from my ex threatening me to refuse me from any contact unless, I agreed to sell the family home and give her all the profits
- emails from my ex, warning me of the danger I would be in if I didn't sell the house immediately.
- emails from my ex, boasting to me that her father is very close friends with a senior police officer in the Surrey area and no court would ever rule against her...

- evidence of my ex socialising with the Cafcass officer in my case
- evidence of the Cafcass office in my case boyfriend appearing in the same modified car magazine together with my ex's brother

**** NOT JUST "voluminous"**** BUT BEYOND ANY RESONABLE DOUBT AND TOTALLY COMPELLING.
All of my ex-partners we reviewed if great detail; which took several hours because all of her statements, complaints to the police and answers during cross examination varied drastically.
.
A few of her allegations are as follows:
.
1) On the day I told her I submitted papers to court, my ex coincidentally alleges she say me at` 21:00 mid November 2009 driving on the opposite side of the road! She knew it was me because she saw my car registration. Therefore I was stalking her. There were witness statements suggesting:

- I drove past my ex.
- Then went to the house she randomly decided to stop at after work
- Then I arrived at another friends house, where my ex decided to dive to after she saw me.
All 3 locations are at least 5 miles apart, but I was alleged to be at all 3 within the space of 10 minutes....

Ignoring the fact that I drive a common black car, which does not have the front registration plate illuminated \\(therefore at night all you would see is my head lamps) Circuit Judge Rylance surmised that the facts are irrelevant because if it was me, the mere fact that I was on a road 20 miles away from where we both lived it was my intentions to intimidate my ex.
.
2) October 2009 my ex-partner told me her father's friend who is a senior police man told her to make allegations of domestic abuse in order to secure free legal representation.
.
The fact that I had submitted a complaint to the Police Department of Professional Standards regarding the advise she received was another form of domestic abuse! Presumable police officers are perfectly entitled to pervert the course of justice?
.
3) Amongst my ex-partner varying and inconsistent allegations, she alleged that 2 years prior to her deciding to leave, I threw a house telephone at her unintentionally, which happened to hit both her and my child leaving them both with 1 small scratch, no bump, concussion or bruising.
.
The photographs taken 1 day, 5 days and 7 days (2 weeks leading up to Christmas) after the alleged incident, which I submitted to refute her version of events were all dismissed because they were not time stamped. Presumable if I knew I was collecting evidence then I would have taken better care?
.
The fact that I was not present when the injuries were sustained and the only explanation I had was the one given to me by my ex-partner at the time, was also rejected by Circuit Judge Rylance. He surmised that both versions of events were unlikely, but decided to accept the allegation from my ex-partner. He actually suggests that a blunt house telephone is more likely to cause a scratch to the forehead, leaving not swelling, bruising or concussion than the sharp corner of a draw!
.
4) My ex partner also suggested in mid 2006, because we were arguing then I tried to leave the room we were both in. She even admitted she perused me to 3 different rooms, then I pushed her while she was pregnant as I passed on a narrow landing to escape outside and have a cigarette!
.
To date, I still do not recall pushing all I remember was finally being frees to from the house and having a cigarette. Circuit Judge Rylance, surmised the contact though may have been slight still constitutes domestic abuse!
.
5) Without previously submitting a formal witness statement another of my ex-partners was allowed to take her place on the witness stand and make the exact same allegations against me! All without a prior statement or any evidence to support her allegations.
.
Is perjury now allowed the UK Family Courts? Under UK law, no one is allow to stand and give evidence without a prior statement. (Unless it is in circuit judge John Rylance's own private court)?
.
As I was litigating in person, I was also forced to endure the greatest torrent of intrusive and aggressive behaviour from the female barrister that represented my ex-partner. While I am some-what grateful she temporarily had something to fill what appears to be a mostly vacuous existence, I fear Circuit Judge Rylance did nothing to cull her over enthusiastic, intrusive and aggressive attitude towards me. Is this not harassment? Circuit Judge John Rylance my be accustomed to mass hysteria in his daily life, but this was completely alien and abnormal behaviour in my opinion.
.
Within the first 45 minutes of the hearing my ex-partner appeared to cry on 15 separate occasions, forcing the court clerk to hand her a bundle of tissues. Needles to say, my ex promptly dropped them to the floor then continued to pretend she was upset. Her false act very promptly stopped after I highlighted that after 45 minutes she was still to produce a single tear drop! Surprisingly she was then very able to continue for another 3 hours without being upset at all. In fact the only emotion she directed at me was exceptional levels of aggression!
.
The media will never be allowed in the Family Courts. Could this be why?
.
Needles to say, in the 12 page bundle produced by Circuit Judge Rylance, nowhere did it mention anything about contact my child should have with me. Neither did it highlight any concerns about the contact I have with my child.
.
There has previously been over 6 months of supervised contact which very strongly promotes me as a good father. Now several weeks after the court hearing, I am still waiting for Cafcass to arrange contact.
.
This whole process is insane! The fact that court officials are never held accountable for their actions are decisions is dangerous!
.
During his verbal summary, while concluding the Fact Finding hearing Circuit Judge Rylance in his summary suggested that as my child has not had any contact with her paternal family for 9 months, he will "grant a few members of my family contact, but not all of them."
.
Which ones? Do I line up members of my daughter paternal family by skin colour and ask circuit judge John Rylance to advise which are light enough to qualify for contact?
How else do I decide?
Maybe I run a lottery to decide who can contact my child?
What business of his is this? To date there are only allegations against me, none of which have been consistent, made any sense, truthful or substantiated with any evidence!
.
As a 6'3" black man residing in the UK in 2012, I feel the fate of my mixed race child has been decided purely based on the colour of my skin!
.
How could this be possible?
.
How would this ever be reported out to the rest of the world?
.
IT IS NOT JUST CAFCASS, IT IS THE WHOLE PROCESS!
THIS IS WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE SO MUCH SECRECY SOUROUNDING THE MUSA CASE!!!!

theUKhasbecomeajoke June 6, 2012 12:28 am (Pacific time)

@Sabine Hi, We started using this name, the day after a family member came back and reported the horrors he experienced during the first day of his family court proceedings 30 months ago. There is now 14 of us that blogs/comments using this name. To date he currently has no contact with his daughter, because he's apparently far too narsassostic. If you google "theUKhasbecomeajoke" you'll see some details of the horrors....

Shocked from London May 30, 2012 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

Fantastic coverage. Please keep up the reporting in the police state called Great Britain. It is criminal how social services, the SS behave, hospitals and the family courts steal children from innocent parents. Sadly this is the tip of the iceberg in GB. Over 10,000 children have been put in "care" this year alone! It is a £3.4 Billion industry making many people very rich.

Sabine K McNeill May 24, 2012 4:15 am (Pacific time)

It is simply too much: instead of admitting to the mistake, one crime after another are committed AND covered up! And everybody "plays along": Police, Social Services, NHS and Judiciary. @UKhasbecomeajoke: did you create this email address only for this case???

theUKhasbecomeajoke May 22, 2012 6:25 am (Pacific time)

I did previously guess there would be a very obscure technicality which would bring these proceedings to an abrupt ending. What better way than under a cloud of secrecy? There is very clearly something much more sinister going on here. Otherwise why would the greatest legal system be allowed to be eroded to this extent? Judge Patrick and Sir Nicholas Wall: MAY YOU, YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN BE PUNNISHED FOR YOUR SINS!!!

Sean_M May 22, 2012 6:17 am (Pacific time)

When the disgrace which is the UK family justice system is brought under full international scrutiny. Exactly how will judge Patrick explain he was not complicit in devastating miscarriage of justice which this case represents? Why all the secrecy? Is he only there to prevent the UK's dirty linen been put on display for all to see? WTF is he checking an online blog for? Exactly who does he actually think he is? There are international laws that can be used to prevent lies from circulating around the internet. If judge Patrick was afraid of what is been posted, why does he not simply stick to what is written in law?!?

[Return to Top]