368
In 2014, a massage therapist called Sylvie Berki accused Russell Brand of assaulting her. The High Court issued a secret injunction that silenced her for the rest of her life. (taxpolicy.org.uk)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 17 hours ago (9 children)

Gotta love it when they say behaviour that any reasonable man would find contemptible is contempt of court.

Mr Justice Jay should consider his position. Same of the judges who sat on the 3 appeals she's been denied over the last 12 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago* (7 children)

    Appeals courts cant overturn based on vibes. There needs to be some procedural error or new information, and judgement is on that. They arent retrials.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

    We’d expect the judgment would contain the discussion of whether these restrictions were necessary and proportionate, and whether they were compatible with the exclusions in the Protection from Harassment Act. It does not. A lawyer would surely have raised these arguments, but Ms Berki of course had no lawyer.

    Without going through the appeals with a fine toothed comb, I couldn't say whether she raised these arguments along the way or if this is just an observation of the author. However she never really had an appeal, she was denied the chance to any full hearing at any stage over the last 12 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

    Which puts meat on the adage that a person who represents themself has a fool for a client.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

    That adage assumes you are rich. A poor person who represents themselves is just poor and a victim of the system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    Somewhat, but it also seems Mr Justice Jay is just an asshole to litigants in person - in direct contradiction to the rules he was supposed to follow.

    Mr Justice Jay does not have a good record of dealing with litigants-in-person. Two years later, in a different case, he behaved so poorly that the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court found that he’d bullied a litigant-in-person. The Supreme Court found that he had aimed a “barrage of hostility” at the litigant-in-person, and “harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •