The Judgment of Lord Justice Ward, October 1995
THIS ISThe Judgment of Lord Justice Ward: IN THIS CASE WHICH HE GAVE IN CHAMBERS ON THE 26TH MAY 1995 BUT WHICH IS BEING HANDED DOWN IN OPEN COURT TODAY. IT CONSISTS OF 295 PAGES AND HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED BY THE JUDGE.
THE JUDGE HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT NEED BE TAKEN AND THAT THE VERSION HANDED DOWN MAY BE TREATED AS AUTHENTIC.
THE JUDGMENT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ON THE STRICT UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ANY REPORT OF IT NO PERSON (OTHER THAT COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND THOSE PERSONS IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF) MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY NAME AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANONYMITY OF THE CHILD, A WARD OF COURT, AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY MUST BE STRICTLY PRESERVED.
SIGNED:
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD DATED 19TH OCTOBER 1995
W 42 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE MATTER OF ST (A MINOR)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1991h
Lord Justice Ward
For reasons set out in my judgment, I have permitted the publication of this judgment in order that the media, who are aware of these proceedings, may legitimately publish matters which seem to me undoubtedly to be matters of public interest. There is, however, no legitimate public interest in the identity of the parties to these proceedings and I have accordingly granted an injunction to which reference must be made for its full terms and effect but the general tenure of which is to restrain any publication which will identify or which is calculated to lead to the identification of the child who is and will remain a ward of court or of the parties to these proceedings or of the address in Leicestershire as being the home where the child is living. In the course of the hearing I received much evidence of and affecting other children whose identity is confidential to these proceedings and must likewise not be disclosed except under the initials given to them in the judgment. I also received evidence from a number of adults some of whom have already publicly disclosed some details of the life within The family. Others have maintained their silence. As I explained to all witnesses, the evidence they gave me was confidential to the proceedings and I would respect that confidentiality. Accordingly those witnesses are also named by initial only and the identity of those witnesses is likewise protected from public disclosure unless and until that witness freely and not under pressure expressly waives that privilege. If, therefore, the media consider that there is any more to tell then I am about to unfold in a lengthy judgment, then I hope they will conduct there further enquiries discretely and responsibly and above all mindful of my injunctions which they must please respect.
The parties will find at the back of this judgment a list which may be unfolded which will identify for them the names of those who appear in the judgment under initials only. For the preparation of this schedule and for so much other work, I pay tribute to and give thanks for the industry of Mr Marcus Scott - Manderson.
I began to write this judgment on the first day of the new legal year after the service for the Judges at Westminster Abbey and with the words of the lesson read by the Lord Chancellor ringing in my ears. From Romans xiii: 10 "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." The Dean's prayer for the Judiciary was that they "may be granted the Spirit of Discernment and the Spirit of Love that they may boldly, discreetly and mercifully fulfil their sacred duties, to the good of Thy people and the glory of Thy name." It all seemed so apposite, for this case is - or at least it professes to be - all about love. Love is, of course, an old, old story. " Amor omnia vincit et nos cedemas amori" - love conquers all, let us surrender ourselves to love - wrote Virgil; "Love is all you need," sang the Beatles. If the theme was timeless, so seemed this case, especially in my many moments of exasperation during the hearing and in the months it has taken to complete this judgment. It has needed the noble subject of love to expiate the ignoble distinction of being the longest wardship ever tried and I hang my head in shame to publish the fact that this hearing lasted 75 days and that is has taken me nigh on a year to produce this judgment.
These long months have been spent trying the issues joined between the Plaintiff Mrs T., a grandmother, and the Defendant NT, her daughter, each so strongly imbued with that instinctive love for her offspring, and in grandmother's case also her offspring's offspring, that each has never flinched or contemplated surrender in this titanic struggle to secure the care and control of the much loved child in question, the Defendant's son, S. At no time has there been any issue about this young mother's ability properly to love her child and to attend to all his physical needs and the only harm from which grandmother seeks to protect him is the harm she alleges he will suffer from remaining with his mother as faithful members of what is popularly but inaccurately known as a cult, the Children of God, now known as The Family of Love or simply as The Family. This new religious movement, which is a preferable expression to "cult," was founded and led by David "Moses" Berg. They live by the Law of Love, the central principle of which is:
"Now all things are lawful to us in love, Praise God! As long as it's done in love, it keeps God's only law of love."(The writings are invariably given some emphasis which I intend not to repeat throughout this judgment save exceptionally.)"
This is another notion of love which I have had to investigate. Much time has been devoted to identifying the extent to which, if at all, sexual excesses have flowed from the freedoms conferred by the Law of Love, and the extent to which inappropriate methods of discipline and control have been imposed upon the members of the group, particularly the children, all in the name of Love on the basis commonly, if not accurately, attributed to Saint Augustine," Ama et fac quod vis" - "Love and do what you will." The Defendant's and the group's love for their leader, "Father David" is so resolute that the Plaintiff invites me to consider whether, as Portia mused, "Love is blind and lovers cannot see the pretty follies that themselves commit".
The mother claims the inalienable right to love her God as she chooses, which is a love she submits brooks no interference from a Court of Law because she is entitled to the fundamental freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
I feel somewhat caught in the spider's web of which the Canadian Chief Justice Lamer wrote in his Alexander Thane Lecture in Law when dealing with the difficulty Judges face in deciding issues of social policy:
"I sometimes think of these sorts of cases as being somewhat like a spider's web. If you pull on one strand of the web, the entire structure moves, but not necessarily all in the same direction. The implications are widespread and, at times, hard to foresee."
Let me now identify some of the main strands of this spider's web.
The child concerned, S, was made a Ward of Court 8 days after his birth on 10th February 1992 when his maternal grandmother issued an Originating Summons in Wardship, the Defendant to which, as I have indicated, was her daughter, NT. It was my unhappy lot to be the Applications' Judge when grandmother applied for Orders directed to the Tipstaff to seek and find S. I soon invited the Official Solicitor to act as his guardian at litem and I am most grateful to him for invaluable assistance. The Plaintiff's has voiced her anxieties about the practices of the Children of God because the group has, over the years and on several continents, excited the attention of the police, the Courts and, inevitably, the media. Even as this case has been progressing, there have been newspaper articles and television programmes about them. The media know about and express interest in the outcome of these proceedings. Because S is a Ward of Court, I would be entitled to give this Judgment in camera in order to preserve the confidentiality not only of my Ward and the parties but also the many witnesses who have given evidence and who were reminded and perhaps consoled by me that it would be a Contempt of Court to publish information relating to these proceedings. That is not to say that they are prohibited from telling their life's story but they are restrained from relating it with reference to these proceedings. In deciding whether to exercise the power I undoubtedly have to give judgment, or a resume of my judgment, in open Court with liberty, therefore, to publish it, I have regard to the following matters:-
(a) The high level of rumour and speculation about the activities of the Children of God.
(b) The proceedings that have been heard in and are still pending in other jurisdictions.
(c) Matters of public importance touching on religious freedom and education.
(d) The time and expense incurred in this hearing, some of it - but happily not all of it - a drain on the public purse.
(e) The implications of this Judgment for the other parents and children within The Family in the United Kingdom and for the local authorities and education authorities in whose area they live - even though these findings are of course not binding on any of them.
In the light of those considerations, I conclude that the public interest is best served by this Judgment being delivered in Open Court, subject, however, and the media must please take note, to restrictions I have placed by way of injunction of general application to restrain any publicity which identifies my Ward or the parties to this dispute or even the identity of children and of the witnesses who gave evidence - all of whom are referred by initials - unless they expressly waive the privilege of anonymity. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the effect of the media descending upon the home in which the child lives - " doorstepping" is, I believe, the colloquialism for this journalistic technique - will be grievously upsetting to the members of the community in which my Ward lives, and will accordingly upset and cause harm to my Ward. The group see that as "persecution" and I agree that "doorstepping" would be exactly that. I very much hope the media will not find it necessary to intrude. The leaders of the community have expressed their willingness to make arrangements for a news conference and I welcome that but I repeat that the anonymity of the parties, the child and the witnesses must be respected. There is surely enough of a story in, and the public interest must be sufficiently satisfied by reporting the facts I am about to set out.
I ask the media please to respect the privacy of the parties who in wardship proceedings ordinarily would not suffer delicate details of domestic differences being disclosed to the general public and I invite, and having invited, I expect the media to be discreet in their reporting of this part of the Judgment.
The Plaintiff is a lady some 58 years of age. She married in 1966 and two children were born of the marriage, NT who is not far short of her 28th birthday and CT who will soon be 26. Both sides of the family seemed comfortably placed and they lived an easy life in Kenya. When NT was about 10 she was sent to boarding school in England, as was CT in due time. It was a conventional step to take, one which I am sure was genuinely believed by both parents to be in the childrens' interest, but the separation of these young children from their parents and the deep unhappiness it caused them, has an ironic edge to it considered against certain Family practices I have heard so much about. This marriage was not a happy one. The Plaintiff and her husband separated in 1981 and were divorced in 1982. It was an acrimonious, bitter divorce which took its toll upon the Plaintiff and no doubt on all the other members of the family and they all still seem to suffer.
In 1983 the Plaintiff's stepfather died. He was a wealthy man who set up a series of Trust Funds from which the Plaintiff and her children, among others, have benefited. Each of them has a substantial private income which has taken them way outside the Legal Aid limit. For a long time both mother and daughter were represented by solicitors with Leading Counsel and Junior Counsel. By October last the Plaintiff had already been forced to dispense with Leading Counsel and the Defendant's Leader availed of the opportunity to make legal submissions to me in the course of that long directions appointment and I gave a separate Judgment, which may now be reported, when I refused to discharge the Wardship. When this hearing began in January 1994, the Plaintiff had to appear in person. I gave leave that she might be assisted by Miss Jenny Kent, who conveniently had knowledge of the case having worked on it as the pupil of Counsel who had been acting for the Plaintiff. Miss Kent who has had perforce to serve much of her pupilage having effective conduct of this case, not with right of audience but only as the "McKenzie friend." The first time she rose to her feet as a fully fledged barrister was to make the closing submissions on the Plaintiff's behalf. What an ordeal. But how well she did it! She won my unreserved admiration for a most polished maiden speech.
It had seemed that the Defendant would also run out of money and appear in person. Mr Richard Barton, not greatly senior to Miss Kent, had some earlier knowledge of the case as the Chambers' Devil, and appeared on the first day of the hearing applying unsuccessfully on behalf of other members of the community to be joined as parties. He was, however, retained by the mother. He was immediately thrown in the deep end, given precious little time to prepare but he has kept his head above the water - and at times below the parapet - in a way which has also won my admiration. Tributes to Counsel would not be complete without my acknowledging the great help I have received from Miss Pamela Scriven QC and Mr Marcus Scott-Manderson ably and fully instructed by the Official Solicitor. Mr Roderick Wood QC breezed in grandly at the end to make an erudite contribution on the law as amicus curiae, having the assistance of notes mainly made by Miss Rachel Platt, at least until she went off to get married! .
I have interrupted the story. NT had an unhappy and a troubled time at school and did herself little credit until her third year. She then settled and showed her mettle. It was difficult for her because she was witness to the parental arguments during her school holidays, conscious of her father's infidelity and deeply upset by these troubles at home. At 16 she was caught smoking and was expelled. Grandmother, naturally protective of her daughter, was more angry with the headmistress than with NT.
CT was no more happy. His misfortune was to witness a master at his preparatory school indecently assaulting a friend. He knows, and his sister knows, what a searing and abusive experience that was not only for the victim but for the observer. That knowledge should have induced some sympathy for some of the witnesses called by the Plaintiff but the connection did not seem to be made despite my prompting. The Plaintiff's response on learning of this indecency was wholly predictable: she removed CT at once. Again the parallel with this case is not acknowledged by either of her children. In due time he went on to public school and then to art school. He, too, was unsettled by his life's experiences and was without purpose or direction.
His father had not set him a good example. He is a man of great charm but his lifestyle has defied the convention of his class, upbringing, and military service. He remained in Kenya after the divorce living in a "camp" with a girlfriend. I have the impression of a fairly lax, free and easy mode of life but the detail does not matter at all. He is too much of a roué to be a good really father, but as he gave evidence, I warmed to him more than I had thought likely. It is not at all surprising to hear NT declare that she was much closer to her father than to her mother, nor is it a surprise to me that CT felt more comfortable with his mother than with his father. It is sufficient for this judgment to express the finding that each of these parents, so utterly different in temperament and outlook, established enduring attachments with each of the children. In particular I find that no matter how frequently over the years mother and daughter clashed and opposed each other in the manner of like poles in the magnetic field, they have loved each other with a strength which has survived despite NT's protestations of a present deep antipathy and hostility which she has even described as hatred for her mother because of the action taken by her mother in these proceedings.
1986 was another unhappy year for the family. The strain of the matrimonial difficulties, the struggle to keep the house for the family and to preserve some security for them took its toll upon the Plaintiff who suffered a deep depression and made a serious attempt upon her life. NT having obtained her qualification in business studies, found her employment as a temporary typist singularly unfulfilling and she returned to Kenya where things were no better. "Everyone", she said, "seemed to live rather shallow lives dominated by sex and drugs." The Plaintiff may rue the day she suggested to NT that they attend a meditation course. Father and his girlfriend joined in. It did not appeal to the Plaintiff but it had a very great attraction for her former husband who became an acolyte of a Gurumayi to whose Ashram he retreated for instruction. His 21st birthday present to NT was a holiday in India to join him near Bombay. She went. She stayed, but it did not seem to be exactly her cup of tea. Nepal beckoned. Her modest resorting to drugs gave her respite from the emptiness of her existence. It was an emptiness just waiting to be filled. Little imagination is needed to complete the rest of the story. Members of the Children of God were laudably engaged in their ministry to spread the gospel of Christ along the hippy trail to Kathmandu. They invited NT to pray that the Holy Spirit might come into her life. Deeply sceptical if not also forthrightly hostile to the idea that Christianity offered any salvation, she nonetheless joined in prayer. The prayer was answered. She was reborn. She forsook all and joined the group.
This laconic account is not intended to conceal how momentous an event this was - and is - in the life of this young lady, nor do I wish to denigrate the similar occasion for other members of the group or for so many others of different persuasions who have experienced the cataclysmic joy of becoming what is sometimes disparagingly called "reborn Christians". The change in their life is the obvious evidence of their conversion but the light in their eye is more compelling testimony of the power that drives them onwards. For those, like this Plaintiff, who do not follow suit, the change is often totally perplexing and incomprehensible.
Meanwhile CT had returned to Kenya and sought his solace in heroin. In the summer of 1988 he travelled to India to visit NT whom he found to be a much changed and improved person. At the instigation of The Family, he, too, accepted Jesus into his heart.
The Plaintiff and her children corresponded on affectionate terms, NT showing more affection than had been her wont. She returned to London early in 1989. She and her mother met with some regularity. Some time in about 1990 NT took her mother to a house in North London and the Plaintiff had the distinct feeling that the house was on show to outsiders. NT did not disclose that she lived elsewhere. In July 1991 NT accompanied by a member of the group visited her mother and told her she was pregnant. Again she was not frank as to where she was living. Shortly afterwards the Plaintiff learnt that the group whom NT had described as being "Heaven's Magic", was in fact the Children of God. What she learnt about them from disaffected former members filled her with absolute horror.
At a meeting at her home arranged in August 1992, the Plaintiff introduced NT to former members with close links to so called anti-cult organisations. The daughter of one of them, NT, a young teenager 15 years of age, spoke of her unhappy experiences and later repeated them to me in evidence. NT was unimpressed. The relationship between mother and daughter was fractured and so far there has been little time of healing.
CT had travelled with The Family to Thailand and cancelled his mother's proposed visit to him for fear that she, with the assistance of the anti-cult organisations, would kidnap him and 'de-programme' him against the contamination of his 'brain-washing' by David `Moses' Berg and his followers. These events have assumed enormous significance in the minds of NT and CT. Of course they are right to believe that their mother was intent upon persuading them to leave their group but I am totally satisfied that she did not plan any kidnapping or anything of the kind and no sinister plot for 'de-programming' existed at all.
On 13 December 1991 NT telephoned her mother to say she would contact her when the baby had been born. She wrote saying that she did not wish her mother to be in England for the birth. In fact NT, fearing her abduction, went to Scotland where S was born on 10 February 1992. It is not insignificant as a pointer to the true relationship which exists between mother and daughter that NT confided the fact of S's birth to her mother, not to her father. It is also noteworthy how involved the plaintiff was in these events in contrast with the new grandfather who knew nothing of the birth of his grandson until that information was conveyed to him a month later at a cocktail party.
The Wardship proceedings were started. The information placed before me led my taking the most unusual step of ordering that if S were found by the Tipstaff he should be removed from his mother and placed in the interim care of his grandmother until I could deal further with the matter. It was an unfortunate consequence of that order that the police attended, as agents for the Tipstaff, at a home where the Defendant had been living in Essex and that 'raid' naturally caused fear and alarm to the adults and especially the children, who lived in that community. I regret that it happened and with hindsight I regret making that order. After various attempts had been made to enforce the order, NT made contact with solicitors in a way which satisfied me I could trust her to remain within the jurisdiction whilst these serious matters were investigated. I discharged the order giving care and control to grandmother and placed my trust in NT to look after her child and to keep him here. My trust in her has been repaid not least to the extent that I can be satisfied that S has been well cared for and has grown into a delightful little boy. To be fair to the plaintiff, I should also emphasis that it is has always been her case that NT has all the qualities of a good mother and the plaintiff's only complaint about NT is her continuing membership of The Family.
