Join the online forum
Join the
online forum
Like our facebook page
Like our
Facebook page
Donate to our campaign
Donate to
our campaign
Contact your MP
your MP
Place this poster at your local library
Place this poster at your local library
Take Action Now
Manifesto Help Me
Back to Latest News
July 22nd, 2016

Fathers4Justice Founder in High Court Judicial Review Final Hearing over Closed Courts, Tuesday 26 July 2016


The founder of Fathers4Justice appears in the High Court (Royal Courts of Justice) on TUESDAY 26TH JULY 2016 for the trial of his Judicial Review Claim seeking to quash the decision of Aldershot Magistrates Court on 20 February 2015 to hold his trial for a minor public order offence in a court which banned 90% of the public who actually wanted to attend the trial.

Matt O’Connor also seeks quashing of the whole trial proceedings (so far as they got: the Bench adjourned the case to allow this Judicial Review to be brought) as a nullity, not being held in open court as required by (1) the Common Law, (2) the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and (3) Articles 6 & 10 ECHR. One of the excluded members of the public, Mr Donald Jerrard, retired solicitor, has been joined as 2nd Claimant in the Judicial Review.

Fathers4Justice believe the arrest and criminal charge under s.5 Public Order Act 1986 were politically motivated and relate to the Group’s criticism of Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Southampton North, and Hampshire Chief Constable Andy Marsh over an alleged child abuse cover up at Stanbridge Earls School in 2013/14.

In April 2014 Mr Marsh faced an investigation that he leaked details regarding the abuse to the MP. We believe the real reason why anyone remotely connected with Matt O’Connor was not allowed to attend the trial in February 2015 was to censor reporting of the case and to suppress any report coming out about Nokes, Marsh, and the child abuse cover up.

However, the High Court’s main focus on 26th July will simply be the lawfulness or otherwise of the exclusion of all Matt O’Connor’s supporters and whether or not in consequence the Aldershot proceedings were held in open court as required by law. Secondly, the High Court at the Leave hearing on 15 October 2015 expressed concern about the behaviour of the Court Security and is expected to give guidance for future cases. Mr Justice Ousely said: “There are potentially important and difficult issues to be resolved about the interaction between magistrates, security and the public, who decides what in relation to a building operated by a general court service for the purposes of providing courts in which access by the public to the courts for the purpose of hearing cases is normally a matter for judicial control”.

Their behaviour at Aldershot on 20/2/2015 was indeed remarkable.

Evidence has now been disclosed by HMCTS of how the SW Regional Security Officer Mr Richard Harvey, and the Court Delivery Manager Ms Donna Beeson planned (or conspired) the day before on 19/2/2015 to bar entry to the Court building of anyone connected with or supporting Matt O’Connor.

They had no evidence whatsoever of any intended disruption that could possibly justify such plans; on the day of the trial they carried out their plan to the extent of even banning from entering the Court building two of Matt’s defence witnesses, one of whom was a Hampshire County Councillor (Tony Hooke).

Interfering with witnesses just happens to be a very serious criminal offence (and criminal contempt of court): perverting the course of justice, or interfering with the administration of justice. HMCTS has already admitted that Mr Harvey and Ms Beeson did not follow HMCTS internal policy, because they did what they did without consulting the magistrates.

When Matt O’Connor objected to the exclusion of the majority of the public from his trial, the Bench made a number of errors in deciding to uphold the exclusion. Thus:

1. They took no evidence at all, but simply assumed the Regional Security Officer had some good reason for his barring people from coming in.

2. They did not exercise a judicial discretion and judgment, but effectively delegated the decision to the Security Officer.

3. They acted on legally erroneous advice from their Legal Advisor (clerk in court).

4. They acted in breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 (Part 16) in not giving the excluded members of the public, or at least a representative of them, an opportunity to make representations about the exclusion.

This is an important case and is likely to set a precedent.

The High Court hearing will be open to the public: come and support the Claimants and the principle of Open Justice. It is expected that advocate for Matt will be Dr Michael Pelling, Open Justice campaigner.

For further information see here:

Watch the courts deny members of the public access to Matt O’Connor’s trial

Watch Matt O’Connor’s arrest here:

Back to top

Show your support