Finally got myself a minute to put up the judgment on the rehearing of the notorious Tolson appeal case from I think Jan/Feb this year. It was heard by Mrs Justice Judd. I attended most of it - judgment here bit.ly/3fJZmmA
Recap on thread from earlier today: the two rape allegations that Tolson dismissed in such outrageous terms were found to have happened. All the mother's other domestic abuse allegations but one were also found as fact.
None of the father's allegations against her were found.
Observations from watching the trial: it was clearly incredibly distressing and embarrassing for the woman to give evidence of the kind of abuse she described, and excruciating, really, to see her being cross examined on it for hours.
She broke down several times. My comment to myself at the time was that it felt like watching a helpless creature being tortured. I'm sure that to people involved in family law this may seem overblown. It was, nevertheless, the image that came to my mind and hasn't left me.
This is all the while acknowledging that the judge managed the case incredibly carefully and considerately throughout, and the cross examination, while extremely direct and relentless, was not in tone or language abusive.
However, much like the reaction to the cross examination of Frances Andrade (who killed herself following it - I do not say directly because of it), I cannot see how to subject anyone who *has* been raped and domestically abused, who is clearly already vulnerable...
..because of previous experiences, my reaction is that this process in itself cannot be other than highly traumatic and inherently abusive, whether it it intended to be or not.
And so watching this extremely well-managed trial, I'm left wondering if seriously, this is the best we can do to protect victims of domestic abuse and, lets not forget, their children, who have already endured fear (sometimes for their lives) sexual assault and powerlessless.
It was acknowledged at the very start of the trial that the evidence would be highly sensitive. Both mother and father applied for journalists - me and Brian Farmer - to be excluded as it the parties believed it might affect their ability to give evidence.
We both completely got that. But we argued that in this case (perhaps particularly so), it was vitally in the public interest that we were able to observe the conduct of the trial, and we explicitly said we had a role to hold the judge to account.
Mrs Justice Judd in her ruling on the issue asked us to turn off our cameras, and said she would see how things went as the hearing progressed. As it turned out, from what I could tell, it seemed to go fine.
At least, no other representations were made to have us excluded. And I think it is, probably, a good thing for the media to turn off their cameras, because it is probably a bit different having a picture of journalists on your screen while giving evidence..
As opposed to us sitting on the press bench. I don't know, I'd be interested in people's views on this.
I'm left wondering, what was different about this factfinding that led to such a complete about turn in the facts that were found? And how can it be a fair system that puts a victim of serious, frightening abuse through two trials, a year apart?
The standard 'lawyers' answer - that appeals are the remedy for poor judicial decision-making - always makes me laugh, hollowly, helplessly, furiously. It is no remedy to have go through a ff, then an appeal, then another ff. It is not proof of a system that works....
It's proof of a system that, despite the really excellent professionals who work within it, sacrifices highly vulnerable individuals - who must somehow continue to parent vulnerable children - to its own abusive structures and its own failures.
I'll now put some points that have been made to me, which are interesting, I think.
I'm told the hearing before Tolson lasted less than a full day. This one lasted 2 judgment was reserved (ie, the judge had time to think about her decision). Does the speed at which Tolson conducted (so very badly) the 1st hearing indicate...
a) the pressure judges are under, and b) that this pressure can lead to some really rubbish (and I would argue, inaccurate and dangerous) decisions being made?
Private law cases - which this one was - have soared (can't remember how much by, someone will help me) in the last year or two. So there's a pressing backlog. And necessary fact finding hearings take time to do well. I don't see how you can rush that sort of evidence...
Without (even) further brutalising the parties, and also, without making it impossible to come to any sort of reasonable decision on what's happened. Judges also, surely, MUST have time to •think•
... and it's evident in the Judd judgment how carefully she has analysed and weighed the evidence in this case. You can't do that on the fly. It's a ridiculous prospect.
Another thing that has been pointed out to me is that in the Tolson hearing, only the mother was represented. The father wasn't - this time both had counsel. A better prepared case for the judge? Certainly there was a barrister to cross examine the mother...
I don't recall if Tolson did it in that hearing. I need to check back. Anyway.
Had new evidence come to light? This is also possible. Look at this - it seems that the father's denial of highly abusive texts was able to be disproved at this trial. Did they unchallenged at the last one? I'm not sure. But it seems to look that way.
I'm struck by this paragraph in the judgment:
And the final line in that paragraph: " It seems to me that these matters are not always very clear cut, and I do not think this undermines the veracity of her account."
The imprecision with which someone who has suffered sexual assaults (remember, in the plural) over a period of time remembers exact details seems to have been really well grasped by this judge.
And this paragraph also seems important.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Louise Tickle 🕷

Louise Tickle 🕷 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @louisetickle

27 Nov
Right, I just had a massive panic that I couldn't link the judgment I was just tweeting about to 'that' notorious Tolson appeal. But I can. So here goes. Again.
Remember that Tolson 'rape isn't rape if you don't fight back' (paraphrasing) appeal case? I wrote about it here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Both allegations of rape that Tolson found hadn't happened have now been found as fact.
Read 14 tweets
19 Aug
So... it appears that Southampton City Council has just apologised for 'failings' in children's services’. 1/ dailyecho.co.uk/news/18662130.…
I have some things to say about this. This was the council that @Andy_Bilson's research showed adopted the highest proportion of 0-5 year olds in the country 2/
It was also the LA which was shown by the Court of Appeal to have applied for a child to be placed for adoption on "the slimmest of evidence". They were successful. It was only the mother's courageous battle to overturn that placement order that meant her child is with her now.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!