Mumby Judgement Expenditure.

The request was successful.

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

How much public money did the Children's services department under the direction of the director of democracy spend in attempting to obtain a contra mundum injunction which resulted in last weeks Mumby judgement ?

Yours faithfully,

Melizza Moore

James Moore left an annotation ()

The Judgement in question is here: (Neutral Citation is J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/...

I would invite readers to pay particular attention to Paragraph 21 which reads, and I quote directly:
"What may be called the 'automatic restraints' on the publication of information relating to proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are to be found in section 97 of that Act and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Section 97 prohibits the publication of "material which is intended, or likely, to identify" the child. But this prohibition comes to an end once the proceedings have been concluded: Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2006] Fam 83, [2007] 1 FLR 11. Section 12 does not protect the identity of anyone involved in the proceedings, not even the child: see Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, para [82], A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1497, para [79], In re X and others (Children) (Morgan and others intervening) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam), [2012] 1 WLR 182, sub nom Re X, Y and Z (Expert Witness), [2011] 2 FLR 1437, para [32]. So, just as in the case of experts, there is no statutory protection for the identity of either a local authority or its social workers."

In a nutshell, this means that there is *no* expectation or Statutory provision for the anonymity of those acting in a Public capacity, from bin collectors to Judges to solicitors paid out of the public purse AKA Legal Aid, to social workers, to the Prime Minister - they are all, without exception, public servants.

Allen, Gemma (D,L&T), Staffordshire County Council

Dear Ms Moore,

Thank you for your request for information.

We have completed a search of our records and can confirm that as legal work is not separately costed we unfortunately cannot provide a answer to your request.

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please write to Philip Jones, Head of Information Governance, Wedgwood Building, Block A, Tipping Street, Stafford, ST16 2DH.

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Many Thanks
Gemma Allen
Access to Information Officer
Information Governance Unit
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire Place
c/o Wedgwood Building - Block A
Tipping Street, Stafford
ST16 2DH
Tel: 01785 278568
[email address]

show quoted sections

andrew easom left an annotation ()

It seems to me that concealment of public expenditure in specific legal cases by burying the costs in a mountain of "confidential" paperwork is simply a method used by government workers to avoid examination of their activities. Perhaps you should ask a different question by way of enquiry about fee notes or invoices from solicitors, barristers and experts relating to this matter. Can you approach the Court direct for details of costs? Good luck.

James Moore left an annotation ()

It seems a bit odd to me that given at the conclusion of each case, a fully itemised "bill" is sent through to CLA, the topsheet can't be produced in this case?

Melizza Moore left an annotation ()

If I approached the court directly , it then would not be publicly and published . It would be behind closed doors par their usual business dealings . I wanted to do via FOI request.

amanda beech left an annotation ()

Stafford social services force adoption on parents by lying and they are very corrupt 4,500 each year are forced adopted and judge mumby has spoke a out