[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Staffordshire CC v Beech [2014] EWFC B81 (16 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2014/B81.html Cite as: [2014] EWFC B81

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT STOKE-ON-TRENT

		Bethesda Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent
		16th May 2014

HH JUDGE DUGGAN:

1. The court is considering an application by Staffordshire County Council to commit Amanda Beech to prison for breaches of an injunction granted on 3^rd January 2014.
2. The background comprises care proceedings relating to the child C.B. which were concluded in the grant of Care and Placement Orders on 23^rd May 2013. That order was made in the Family Proceedings Court and the child has recently been adopted.
3. Amanda Beech is the maternal grandmother of this child. Within the care proceedings she made an application, which was dismissed. She appealed against that decision, both to me and to the Court of Appeal, and she was ultimately unsuccessful on 29^th November 2013. The recently concluded adoption proceedings involved an application by the parents for leave to oppose the adoption but that application also failed, see report on the Bailii website as Re B (Adoption) at 2014 EWCC B25 (Fam). The parents' appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision also failed.
4. On 3^rd January 2014 I heard an application for an injunction restraining the grandmother from publishing the name of the child and her photograph on the internet. I was persuaded that this was a serious matter. The grandmother had embarked upon a campaign to seek out and undermine the child's new home. I granted the Injunction Order. My order attracted some publicity in the press following the publication of my Judgment on the Bailii website as Re B (A Child) at [2014] EWCC B1 (Fam). The local authority now allege that the grandmother has broken the terms of my Injunction Order.
5. Mrs. Beech has attended court without representation. I asked her if she wanted the case adjourning for the purpose of securing representation. I explained that I expected that legal aid would be available for representation but she chose to proceed as a litigant in person. The local authority proceeded to outline their case and the position became clear. The Injunction Order was served on Mrs. Beech on 24^th January 2014. This present application to commit was served upon her on 6^th March 2014. The local authority's allegations are set out in a statement which was also served upon Mrs. Beech that day.
6. The law lays down that the local authority bear the burden of proving the truth of these allegations and each must be proved so that I am sure as to its truthfulness and that the facts constitute a breach of the injunction. Two procedural matters arise. Firstly, the rules seem to require an affidavit whereas in this case the local authority have chosen to serve a statement of evidence. In fact, an affidavit was prepared at the last minute and served upon Mrs. Beech. However, the affidavit is in the same terms as the original witness statement of which she did receive proper notice and it is clear to me that no injustice arises. The Practice Direction allows me to waive irregularities of this nature which it is clear to me I should do in these circumstances. Secondly, the Notice of Application to Commit at paragraph 10 contains an allegation dated 8^th February 2013. The local authority intended the allegation to refer to the same date in the year 2014, like all the other allegations which appear in the papers. In all the circumstances, it is clear that no confusion or unfairness arises and so I give permission for the application to be amended as to this date without further formal requirements.
7. After I had heard the local authority outline their case I asked Mrs. Beech if she wished to exercise her right of silence or whether she chose to answer the case against her. She chose the latter, electing to take the oath and give evidence. It is sufficient for me to summarise that the grandmother asserted repeatedly that she was fighting so that the child and the world would know the truth about forced adoption. She admitted a great deal but there are a few contested issues which require resolution. I shall deal with the allegations by the numbers in which they appear in today's Notice of Application.
8. Allegation number 1. Mrs. Beech has a group Facebook page entitled "Stop social services" which has about 7,000 members. This page was compiled before my Injunction Order was granted. The page has photographs of the child and a slogan including her name. The page contains the assertion that the child has been stolen by Staffordshire County Council Social Services. On 24^th January 2014 the Injunction Order was served on Mrs. Beech. On that very day she posted additional words on her group Facebook page in terms which represent a flagrant breach of the court order. I read from the relevant posting which is exhibit 5 in my papers: "I have just had court papers handed me. I have been gagged until (the child's name) is 18 years old. How can this be? They steal my granddaughter, then gag me. Fuck off. You have no chance. I am still fighting for her, you idiots. You cannot bully this nana. The truth hurts and no one will shut me up. I will go to war for my family, you idiots. Please spread the word". These words were posted alongside photographs of the child and other words and slogans which had been posted long before the Injunction Order was granted. However, I find that by posting these additional words on 24^th January 2014 alongside the photograph Mrs. Beech was republishing the old photograph and slogans and so her breach extends not only to the new words but to the old words and the old photograph.
9. Allegation number 2. On 28^th January 2014 the B.B.C. website reported my Injunction Order in an article carefully drawn to avoid breaching the terms of the order itself. However, Mrs. Beech on her Facebook page posted a link to the B.B.C. report together with a short extract from it. She accompanied this posting with additional words of her own which constituted a flagrant breach of the Injunction Order. She posted "Just to let you know this is me, Amanda Jane Beech. It's about my granddaughter (named). Staffordshire Social Services think they can bully me. The truth will be heard."
10. Allegation number 3. On her Facebook page Mrs. Beech posted more words of flagrant breach, this time accompanied by a photograph. Mrs. Beech claims that the photograph could have been put up by someone else. She says that the photograph was already present on her Facebook page. She says that if another person clicked on the Facebook page to indicate they liked the contents the consequence would be that the photograph came up on this profile page automatically without any intervention on her part. The Facebook page does show that people had clicked the page to show that they liked it. Mrs. Beech raised the same point in relation to allegations 5, 9 and 11, saying in relation to these other allegations that the intervention of others explains the entire posting, not just the posting of the photograph, as she says it does for allegation 3. I have looked closely at these pages. No other name appears. On each occasion the posting appears under Mrs. Beech's own name. With the exception of allegation number 5 each photograph follows a different form of words for which it is obvious to me that the grandmother, Mrs. Beech, is responsible.
11. She gave me rather inconsistent evidence about these allegations. She said that she did from time to time re-post material on the Facebook page in order to encourage her campaign. In this context she accepted that some of the postings might be her responsibility but some might be the responsibility of supporters. In the course of her evidence she said that the accompanying words appeared automatically from what she had already recorded herself on other parts of the page. However, on analysis the form of words is different for each of these postings, so I reject this explanation from Mrs. Beech. One of these allegations, allegation number 5, has no accompanying words and comprises just a photograph. However, this posting appears under Mrs. Beech's name, just like the rest. I have heard her account. I am sure that she posted this and the other postings to encourage others to support her continuing campaign.
12. Allegation number 4. This allegation comprises clear words of breach which Mrs. Beech accepts that she posted on her Facebook page. There was no photograph with this posting.
13. Allegation number 5. I have dealt with allegation number 5 above.
14. Allegation number 6. This allegation comprises clear words of breach which Mrs. Beech accepts she posted on her Facebook page. Again, there is no photograph involved in this breach,
15. Allegation number 7 caused me a moment's hesitation. This is Mrs. Beech's Facebook group page. She accepts that she posted on this page a link to a YouTube recording. The new words do not constitute a breach of the terms of the injunction. However, these new words must be considered with the existing words to which they were linked so the effect is a re-publication of the words previously posted. Read together the words refer to the removal of Mrs. Beech's grandchild into care which constitutes a breach of the injunction.
16. Allegation number 8. Mrs. Beech accepts that she posted the words and photograph which constitute this breach. She makes the point that the photograph was already on the web as part of an online petition that she started long before the Injunction Order was imposed. The local authority accept that the photograph is not new, but on this occasion by posting the link Mrs. Beech brought the old picture back onto her Facebook page again which constitutes a re-publication of the old picture in breach of the Injunction Order.
17. Allegation number 9. I have dealt with allegation 9 above when dealing with allegation number 3.
18. Allegation 10. Mrs. Beech accepts that she posted these words which clearly breached the terms of the Injunction Order. The reference to her partner, Mr. Rogers, is accepted by Mrs. Beech as a mistake. This was a publication to a closed group without a photograph.
19. Allegation number 11 has already been dealt with above when I was dealing with allegation number 3.
20. Overall then, all 11 allegations made by the local authority have been proved so that I am sure of the truth of the allegation and the fact that it infringes the terms of the injunction. I intimated this result and indicated that this detailed Judgment would follow.
21. There followed exchanges in which Mrs. Beech assured me that she had stopped acting in breach of the terms of the Injunction Order. She assured me that she would refrain from breaching the injunction in future. She told me that she would now do her best to remove the old postings which, if repeated, would constitute breaches of the injunction. In these circumstances I decided to adjourn sentence to give Mrs. Beech the opportunity to establish this mitigation. This also presented her with the opportunity to reconsider whether she wished to be represented at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, my order recorded the fact that these 11 allegations had been proved and adjourned sentence to a subsequent date.
22. That is the conclusion of the first Judgment.

Approved 21/6/14

RD