Saturday, 22 November 2014

LAWYERS WHO DEFEND PAEDOPHILES HUMAN RIGHTS FOR HURT FEELINGS IN PRISON

20 November 2014 Last updated at 16:42 Share this pageEmail Print Share this page

2.8KShareFacebookTwitter.Murderer paedophiles sue ministers over hurt feelings O'Neill and Lauchlan murdered Alison McGarrigle and dumped her body at sea
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
McGarrigle duo's depraved history
Abuse killers lose conviction appeal
Abuse killers fail to cut jail terms

Two paedophiles who murdered a woman are suing Scottish ministers over lack of contact in jail and for £35,000 compensation each over "hurt feelings".

William Lauchlan and Charles O'Neill killed Allison McGarrigle after she planned to reveal their sex abuse.

The pair say they were previously in a long-standing relationship.

They claim the Scottish government has breached their human rights in relation to inter-prison visits and contact by telephone and letters.

O'Neill, 51, and 37-year-old Lauchlan are serving life sentences in different prisons in Scotland. The authorities have not granted permission for them to see each other in visits.

They argue the Scottish government has failed to respect their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides protection for private and family life. They also claim they have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

They say they were in "a long-standing intimate and sexual relationship" before being imprisoned after their trial in 2010.

Both are seeking damages of £35,000, claiming they are entitled to an award for "hurt feelings" among other things.

'Callous and depraved'

It is said: "Their relationship has suffered as a consequence of the treatment they have suffered. They have both felt frustration and distress at being unable to communicate with each other to a greater extent or to have face-to-face contact."

"This is particularly so when heterosexual couples have apparently been afforded greater contact with each other," it is maintained.

The judicial review brought by the prisoners stated that Scottish ministers failed to provide them with "suitable and sufficient contact" with each other.

The men murdered Allison McGarrigle, who intended to report them for abuse
O'Neill was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison, while accomplice Lachlan was sentenced to a minimum of 26 years after they were found guilty of murdering 39-year-old Mrs McGarrigle in Largs, Ayrshire in 1997. Her body, which they disposed of at sea, was not found.

They were also sentenced for sex abuse offences following two trials.

The sentencing judge, Lord Pentland, told them that they were relentless and murderous paedophiles who represented a high risk to the safety of the public.

The judge said that when they became aware that Mrs McGarrigle was intending to report them to the authorities for sexually abusing a boy they "conceived a callous and depraved plan to murder her and to dispose of her body".

He added: "You then put this plan into effect with chilling composure."

He told them: "The consistent theme which permeated the evidence in both trials was your calculating and devious manipulation of vulnerable individuals in order to further your appetites for sexually abusing young men and boys."

'Fundamental rights'

David Leighton, counsel for the men in the judicial review, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh: "This is a court of law and not a court of morals."

He said the men were seeking to relying on "fundamental protections and fundamental rights which the law affords to all persons."

O'Neill is detained in Edinburgh's Saughton prison and Laughlan is held in Glenochil jail, in Clackmannanshire.

Mr Leighton said the men were aware of heterosexual couples, each of whom was in prison, being allowed face-to-face contact, but were not aware of homosexual couples with the same opportunity.

He argued that the state was obliged to assist prisoners to maintain effective contact with close family members.

In the action for judicial review the prisoners are seeking a declaration that the Scottish ministers have failed to respect their rights and that their treatment has been unlawful.

It is also argued that prison rules that require "exceptional circumstances" for inter-prison visits should be set aside. The action maintains that the murderers are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

Scottish ministers are contesting the action and maintain that none of the orders sought from the court is justified.

The hearing continues.
More on This Story
Related StoriesMcGarrigle duo's depraved history 10 JUNE 2010, GLASGOW & WEST SCOTLAND
Abuse killers lose conviction appeal 13 JUNE 2013, GLASGOW & WEST SCOTLAND
Abuse killers fail to cut jail terms 19 JUNE 2014, GLASGOW & WEST SCOTLAND




http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hastiestable.com%2Fadvocates%2Fjunior%2FDavid%2BLeighton&ei=n29wVLbFKNLqaNuYgZgC&usg=AFQjCNF8h73YIvDVUbInwhPA47a0cKu5hA&sig2=Oc5bCFFn_3jXb5xWAqYUKw

Advocates of the Hastie Stable

I would like to see all advocates Senior advocates Called for over 7 years Called for under 7 years
View advocates by

Alphabetically

By Seniority
Mike Bell
Siggi Bennett
Donald Campbell
John P Campbell
Alan Caskie
Maria Clarke
Gerry Coll
Graeme Dalgleish
Donald Davidson
Andrew Devlin
Bruce Erroch
Kenneth Forrest
Alistair Forsyth
Alasdair Hardman
Graeme Henderson
Kirsty Hood
David Jack
David Leighton
Gavin MacColl
Linda Marsh
Niall McCluskey
Peter McCormack
Isabella McKerrow
Fintan McShane
Alan Melvin-Farr
John Moir
Ross Pilkington
Chris Pirie
Michael Upton
Leonard Wallace
Andrew Webster
Jacqueline Williamson


David Leighton

Year of Call: 2003

Areas of Practice
Damages & Reparation,
Family,
Public Law & Equality

Since calling at the Bar, although practicing across a range of areas, David's primary areas of practice have been Family Law and Mental Health.

In the field of Family Law, he has been involved in cases regarding children, including Adoptions, Freeing for Adoption, Permanence Orders, Referrals from the Children's Hearing, Child Abduction and Contact and Residence Disputes. He has also dealt with financial provision following upon the end of relationships, including cohabitants claims on death and otherwise.

David has been involved in a wide variety of mental health cases, in which he has a particular interest. He has appeared before the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, on appeal and in judicial review proceedings. He has acted in cases dealing with restricted patients and also civil patients.

David has increasingly been involved in work for prisoners, principally through the mechanism of judicial review.

David deals with human rights issues in his practice across many areas of law. He regularly appears for clients in the Court of Session and Sheriff Courts throughout Scotland. He is a well instructed member of the Junior Bar who focuses his attention where needed and is very pleasant to deal with.

General Information
•LL.B University of Edinburgh

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

has anyone noticed that once convicted these people are pedophiles, but before that they are just homosexuals

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotland.gov.uk%2FPublications%2F2003%2F09%2F18213%2F26625&ei=UKFxVNaTMpfXatHqgvAE&usg=AFQjCNGnuymVNw8yM0aFEXL992X8aFFruw&sig2=y6i-tq7uOEpTNxkihvtzvw&bvm=bv.80185997,d.d2s

Listen



ADOPTION POLICY REVIEW GROUP: CHOICES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTERING AND ADOPTION

Chapter 3. Freeing Orders

Freeing is a court application, which can only be made by a local authority adoption agency. The effect is to remove all parental responsibilities and rights from the birth parents, and give them to the agency.

A child does not have to be freed before he or she is adopted, so freeing is not mandatory. However, the timetables in the regulations often mean that a local authority agency has to apply for a freeing when the birth parents are not in agreement and the child has not been placed with prospective adopters. Sometimes local authority agencies choose to use freeing to deal with parental agreement or disagreement before placing with adopters; or to avoid a disputed adoption case between birth and adoptive parents.

Zoompad said...

The legal provisions for freeing need to be reviewed, because freeing is largely no longer used for the purpose for which it was introduced, that was to allow birth parents a quick pre-adoptive order to deal with their agreement to the adoption. Also, the current use of freeing does not always work well, and is often detrimental to planning for children.

The 2002 Act abolishes freeing orders in England and Wales and replaces them with placement orders, s.21. These will give parental responsibility to local authorities; and also to prospective adopters once children are placed with them. However, birth parents will retain responsibility until adoption is granted; but they will not be able to contest the application for adoption unless the court gives permission and that will not be allowed unless the parents can show a change of circumstances. It is expected that the placement order changes will come into force in 2004.

Current issues about freeing can be summarised as follows:
Some local authorities feel they must always seek a freeing before an adoption, even when the child is placed, to avoid any conflict between birth parents and adopters.
The timetables in the 1996 Regs have had the unplanned consequence in many cases of forcing local authorities to raise freeing applications where they would not otherwise do so.
Freeing is perceived to be odd by many social work practitioners, lawyers and judges. This is because full parental responsibilities and rights are transferred to the local authority, but, if the child is not placed, the court has no idea with whom the placement will be made or when. The strangeness of the result is something with which many professionals, including judges, are not comfortable. This is particularly true when there is contact.
The combination of contact and freeing is such that some judges feel unable to grant an order if there is to be ongoing contact. This view is not universal, but it is a reflection of the point above, that a freeing order is a rather strange statutory creature.
When a freeing is granted, a child can fall into legal limbo. There is an automatic, although not explicit, expectation that the child will be placed as soon as possible, and that an adoption application will follow thereafter. This does not always happen. There are difficulties in finding a match for some children, particularly older children with disabilities and/or children in sibling groups. Sometimes a placement is made, but the adopters do not apply to court for adoption, for whatever reasons. Some placements do not work out well, and no adoption is sought, but the child is not moved. Such legal limbo can and does last for a number of years, and this is clearly against the general spirit of the legislation. 'A 'freed' child is not 'looked after' (unless s/he also remains in the hearing system) and while there must be a high standard of duty towards a child for whom a local authority have responsibilities and rights, there is little statutory provision about this. If a placement is not made within 6 months of the freeing, reg. 21 of the 1996 Regs. says that the child's case must be reviewed; but there is no provision to review after placement up to an adoption. Further, if a child has been placed within six months of the freeing, but not adopted, there is no duty in the 1996 Regs. to review the placement, although good practice indicates there should be reviews.

Zoompad said...

Finally, it can be argued that children who have been freed and not placed or adopted
could have a claim under Article 8 of the E.C.H.R.: they could argue that their entitlement to respect for private and family life has been breached.
It is not considered possible to grant a contact order in freeing, and this inability may well be incompatible with the E.C.H.R. This matter was considered in West Lothian Council v M 2002 S.L.T. 1155, see pgs.18-19 above.
Parents who have lost responsibilities and rights through freeing or adoption orders are prohibited from applying to court for orders about their children under the 1995 Act:-s.11(3)(a)(iii) and (4)(a) and (b). This provision was criticised by the court in West Lothian Council v M above, and needs changing as a matter of urgency. See pg. 19 above.

Given all these difficulties, change needs to be considered. There would appear to be 3 options:

(1) Retain freeing, with radical changes.

(2) Abolish freeing and introduce a new type of order, whether similar to a placement order or something different. Such an order could remove parental responsibilities and rights totally; or restrict them, either as a placement order does in the 2002 Act, or in some other way.

(3) Abolish freeing without substituting any court order dealing with parental responsibilities and rights prior to adoption, so that no pre-adoption order is possible.

A placement order is a pre-adoptive one, but is earlier in the process than freeing, as it will have to be completed before a child can be placed. So if there are delays in the legal process, the child will have to wait for placement, even where prospective adopters have been identified. When an order is granted, birth parents retain responsibility until adoption is granted. However, they only have a right to challenge the adoption application if there has been a change of circumstances and the court gives them leave to do so. This does not seem to give much more to birth families, and whether it would make a difference to many children is open to debate.

Complete abolition of freeing, option (3), with no other way of resolving disputes about responsibilities and rights except by a direct adoption case between birth parents and adopters, may not be practicable. While some prospective adopters are happy to be involved directly in disputed cases, some are not. Some family adopters do not want to apply directly against the birth parents. There might be a reduction in recruitment of prospective adopters if there was no pre-adoption order available. Options (1) or (2), which retain some type of pre-adoption order as a means of removing responsibilities and rights, may offer a better choice provided there are sufficient changes to the existing system. A name change could also help.

Zoompad said...

The following points should also be considered in the debate about whether or not there is some form of pre-adoption order:
The timetables in the 1996 Regs need to be reviewed. Admirable though it is to ensure that cases do not take too long between an adoption panel recommendation and a court application, forcing unnecessary freeing applications to be raised is not helpful to anyone, particularly children.
Tied in with timetables for the period from adoption panel to court, consideration should be given to some form of regulatory timetable prior to adoption panels. See Chapter 18, Adoption Agencies.
It is essential that the problem of court delays is addressed. See Chapter 6, Court Processes in Permanence.
A contact order should be able to be made with any pre-adoption order, with the matter considered again in the adoption application.
If no contact order is made with a pre-adoption order (or adoption order), there should be a limited right for birth parents who have lost parental responsibilities and rights, enabling them to go back to court in the future, in the adoption process or later. This is what already happens in England and Wales, where birth parents have a right to apply to the court for leave to seek contact. See Chapter 2, Contact.
The grounds for dispensing with agreement need to be reviewed. These are considered in Chapter 6, Court Processes in Adoption.
There is a need for clarity about the duties owed by local authority agencies to children who have been freed, even if freeing is abolished. Such duties should include timetables for reviewing and placing; and assistance to adopters with their adoption applications. While placements and adoption petitions must not be pushed through regardless, it would be of assistance to have specific duties set out. Where these are not adhered to, children's cases could automatically return to court. Consideration could be given to a system of appointment, by the court or the local authority, of an independent person for all freed children, to provide support and advocacy for them, whatever their ages.
Revocation of freeing raises difficulties. Birth parents can apply for a revocation, if a child has not been adopted or placed for adoption within a year of the order being granted. Local authorities can seek revocation at any time if the child has not been adopted and has not been placed for adoption. However, difficulties arise about a situation where a child may have been placed, but no adoption has gone ahead. Should a birth parent be able to seek revocation? Should the local authority/agency be able to do so? The legislation needs to be clarified, even if freeing is abolished, to assist in all orders granted before such abolition.
Further, the options open to the court on revocation need to be changed. At present, if the court grants a revocation, it can only grant an order under s.11 of the 1995 Act to an individual person or persons. However, there are occasions when revocation of freeing is sought and the best option for the child is a PRO under s.86 of the 1995 Act. This could be where a young person is cared for in a residential unit, and it is not appropriate for the child to live with individual carers. The court on revocation should be able to grant a s.11 order or a PRO or, if other options for permanence are introduced, one of those. This sort of tidying up is necessary even if freeing is abolished, because the revocation provisions will apply to existing freeing orders. The sheriff court rules on revocation of freeing also need tidying up.
Finally, as discussed under Chapter 2, Contact, pg. 19, the appeal court, in West Lothian Council v M 2002 S.L.T. 1155, criticised the prohibition in

s.11(3)(a)(iii) and (4)(b) of the 1995 Act, on birth parents who have lost responsibilities as a result of a freeing or adoption. This prohibition needs to be reconsidered, probably in advance of any future adoption legislation.

QUESTIONS:

5. Should freeing be abolished?

6. If it is abolished, should there be any replacement pre-adoption order?

Zoompad said...

THIS IS ONE OF THE WEAPONS BEING USED BY SECRET FAMILY COURT LAWYER GANGSTERS AGAINST THE MOTHERS OF DISABLED CHILDREN HERE IN STAFFORDSHIRE, BY FALSELY ACCUSING THEM OF BEING BAD PARENTS USING PAEDOPHILE INVENTED JUNK SCIENCE THEORIES IE MSBP TO STEAL DISABLED CHILDREN FROM THEIR MOTHERS AND PUT THEM INTO THE ADOPTION BOOTY, AND THIS IS HOW SOME PAEDOPHILES ARE GETTING ACCESS TO CHILDREN.

Anonymous said...

i have heard it said that these snuff moves coming in fronm israel are fake and not genuine.
My husband is a doctor and he got one of these and we watched it out of curiosity, we are both convinced that the boys buggered and strangled was absolutely genuine no doubt about it in our mind, in discussing this with freinds the thousands of kids who go missing each year it makes sense that many are killed for sport

Anonymous said...

am still full of anger from my time in orphanages and care homes,
No one believed what we went through, I have seen boys lined up and a smiling teacher put price tags on us before a little crowd of smiling men came and looked us up and down, before choosing their boy.
They would choose their boy who was taken stripped and blindfolded so they did not know who it was having them.
But I knew his smell his after shave was thick and heavy and while having me he would tell me I was a dirty child unwanted by anyone and that he hated little nigger boys and I was lucky to be having his dick.
I knew his smell and when us boys were chosen I took a good look at this man, a jew I heard called ‘manny’ ( emanual )
and when ever I was out over the years I would look for him in crowds, outside football matches synagogues and shopping centres then one day when I was 28 I was on the underground and I rushed up and grabbed this man and pulled him down and was about to beat him senseless, when I realised it was not him.
One day I will see him again, if he is still alive and that dirty jew will pay for what he did
bastard

Anonymous said...

pervert sex and occultism link


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rape-accused-albert-hickman-says-7142685

Anonymous said...

I bumped into a chap near me who is a solicitor a while back
I said how are you I had not seen you in ages ?
he said I just won a case on a technicality, a prolific child abuser faced a long prison sentence, but I got him off.
I said well I hope the next kids he interferes with are yours and walked off

Men Scryfa said...

Zoomie - Its me Scryfa. Thanks for re-blogging my earlier posting at www.dux-bellorum.blogspot.co.uk
Zoomie - they are trying to slowly kill me so don't give in to what they are doing to you. They are actually terrified of you. They are actually terrified of the Truth. Because HE is the TRUTH. God Bless you Zoomie!
Thanks for pointing out the Barbara Kahan link. I have posted something new and important about Exaro at:

http://www.dux-bellorum.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/exaro-tim-pendry-lord-thomas-pendry.html

Blessings to you and all your readers in truth. PS Zoomie use the weapons and armour Our Lord gave us. Your enemies shall flee from you.

Men Scryfa
02.XII.12