Woman sentenced to jail in UK without trial

[Jamie123]

Row continues over secret jailing of Wanda Maddocks, who tried to remove father from Stoke-on-Trent care home | This is Staffordshire

The judge and council have a lot to say about the bad things this woman (supposedly) did, and how jailing her was the only option. But quite frankly I don't care if she's the very devil himself. It seems bizarre that anyone should be convicted of any crime without first being given the chance to defend themselves, or to have legal representation.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Jamie123

[annewandering]

It is bad for a woman to take her father for day trips or even year long trips if they both wanted? The woman seems odd but odd isnt a crime is it? He was a her father. He might have been equally odd and happy with it. He wasnt under nursing care. Just in residential units. Nothing in this story makes sense at all.

[Jamie123]

It is bad for a woman to take her father for day trips or even year long trips if they both wanted? The woman seems odd but odd isnt a crime is it? He was a her father. He might have been equally odd and happy with it. He wasnt under nursing care. Just in residential units. Nothing in this story makes sense at all.

I think the point was that the court had officially told her not to do this, but she ignored the instruction and did it anyway. She is also said to have been abusive to officials, to have threatened to "put curses" on them, and to have tried to publicize affairs which were supposed to be confidential. I can understand her frustration, but if true these acts were arguably worthy of a short spell of imprisonment - but only arguably. She should have had the right to argue back - not be tried in absentia without legal representation.

[annewandering]

My point is that the whole thing doesnt make sense to start with. Why did the officials think it was their precognitive to even give any orders in the case at all? Is that typical in England?

If they feel they can give orders on personal choices between a father and her daughter then it follows they would feel free to jail her. They all ready seem to have shown their lack of respect for personal freedom of choice.

[Jamie123]

My point is that the whole thing doesnt make sense to start with. Why did the officials think it was their precognitive to even give any orders in the case at all? Is that typical in England?

If they feel they can give orders on personal choices between a father and her daughter then it follows they would feel free to jail her. They all ready seem to have shown their lack of respect for personal freedom of choice.

I wouldn't say "typical" or England, but sadly a lot of our personal freedoms were eroded under the Blair and Brown administrations. This all has to do with the "Court of Protection" - founded in 2005 under the Blair government - which is supposed to protect the interests of "vulnerable" people (particularly the elderly) by effectively transferring their personal agency to so-called "deputies". This man's personal choices don't really count for anything since he's been judged incompetent to make his own decisions. I dislike the idea of this as much as anyone, but I admit I can imagine situations where it would have its merits. Whether this is such a case I don't know - we only have the tabloids' spin on it at the moment - but I don't think there can be any excuse for denying his daughter the right to defend herself.

[Just_A_Guy]

It's superficially troubling, but I'll withhold judgment. I can visualize a similar situation unfolding in an American juvenile court, where proceedings are confidential and parents and other interested persons are also subject to the court's order and, possibly, contempt of court. In that kind of situation, the contemnor has the right to notice and a hearing--but if he or she no-shows, the court can proceed with a finding of contempt.

I only skimmed the article--and of course, this is all on the opposite side of the pond--but I don't see any allegation that the court didn't send notice of an impending contempt hearing. She may not have received notice, but if that's because she had failed to keep the court apprised of her whereabouts then she really has no one but herself to blame.

[BadWolf]

It's similar to breaking an order of protection/ restraining order here in the States. The penalty is outlined in the initial issuing of the order.

The courts told her not to do x or she would get y.

She did x.

She got y.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I suppose with drone strikes, detainees and Guantanamo Bay, there is still room to be shocked at the legal process.

[talisyn]

Threatening to cast spells would be considered what, under the penal code?