Judge under fire after ordering detention of child sex abuse victim

Judge under fire after ordering detention of child sex abuse victim
Judge Robert Bartfield attracts criticism after 15-year-old girl was held in custody for 20 hours to secure attendance at court



A judge's decision to order the arrest and detention of a child victim of sex abuse to compel her to give evidence against her attacker has been condemned as "utterly shameful" and "Dickensian".

The 15-year-old girl, who had committed no crime, was held for 20 hours in police cells overnight on the orders of the judge Robert Bartfield, sitting at Bradford crown court. When she finally appeared, her evidence lasted just 22 minutes.

The man who groomed her was more than twice her age and had made the girl pregnant at 14, but she did not want to give evidence because she still had strong feelings for him, the court was told.

The judge's decision to order her to be detained, at the request of police and prosecutors, attracted severe criticism from victim and child welfare organisations, and has prompted an immediate review into proceedings at Bradford crown court.

After her arrest and overnight detention last week, the girl was held in cells at the court for a further four and a half hours before giving evidence, the Times reported.

A jury on Tuesday took less than two hours to return a unanimous guilty verdict against the girl's abuser for sexual activity with a child.

On Wednesday, Abid Miskeen, 32, was sentenced to seven years in prison for sexual activity with a child. The judge said: "The suggestion she was in some way forced into the witness box by the prosecution to give evidence on their behalf is wholly misconceived."

Charlotte Kenny, defending, confirmed that if prosecutors had not produced the complainant to give evidence, she would have made submissions that Miskeen could not have had a fair trial.

Bartfield said: "For better or worse that's the way our system works."

The judge had ordered the detention after the start of the case was delayed by more than five hours and the child had left the building, saying she did not want to give evidence.

A spokesperson for the judiciary said on Wednesday: "It is a very unusual and exceptional step for young witnesses to be made subject to a witness warrant and held in custody in order to secure attendance at court. In this case, there was evidence called by the prosecution which the judge ruled justified the exceptional course of making such an order.

"While best practice dictates, and every effort is made to list cases involving vulnerable witnesses at the start of the day, in busy court centres the volume of these types of cases makes it impossible for all of them to start at 10am.

"While each case is different, following initial inquiries we intend to take some immediate steps to address the issues this case raises.

"Listing processes at Bradford crown court will be reviewed and amended to avoid the situation happening again where a vulnerable witness has to wait a long time at court prior to giving evidence.

"Processes will be revisited to ensure that where there is a genuine need to compel young witnesses to attend court, every effort is made to find a solution which ensures they are not detained in police cells overnight.

"For several years judges have been provided with training on the management of vulnerable witnesses, which is kept constantly under review and this year the Judicial College is launching a new course devoted to the subject."

Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of Victim Support, said: "It is utterly shameful that any vulnerable witness, let alone a child who has been the victim of sustained sexual exploitation, could be treated in such a grotesque and frankly degrading manner by those who are supposed to be protecting her.

"The spectacle of a child spending the hours before she gives evidence against her abuser locked up in cells at a police station and at court is nothing short of Dickensian and must never be allowed to happen again.

"This victim needed to be supported, not criminalised, and her treatment underlines how critical it is that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts understand and prioritise the needs of vulnerable victims and witnesses."

The child witness in the case, who cannot be named, arrived at court at 10am on Wednesday last week for the trial's scheduled opening but was said to have become bored and frustrated during a delay of more than five hours. There was initially no courtroom in which the trial could be heard, said the newspaper.

The case was finally called at 2.30pm but by then the girl had left the building, stating that she did not want to give evidence. Gerald Hendron, for the prosecution, made a successful application to Bartfield for an arrest warrant against the child, who was detained and held overnight at Halifax police station. Arrest warrants were also issued for a further three witnesses.

In a statement made in court at the end of evidence, Bartfield said he believed the "interests of justice" had been served.

He said: "Some concern has been expressed about this but there needs to be a fuller understanding of what took place."

He said the girl was an essential witness without whose evidence the trial would have collapsed.

She absconded after being allowed to leave the building to have a cigarette, as did other witnesses, he said. The prosecution believed she was seeking to influence other witnesses and that the absconding was "orchestrated".

"The police and CPS, both of whom are under a duty of care to their witnesses, felt that there was no alternative but to apply for warrants of arrest for all of them," the judge said.

He said he had wished to avoid overnight detention of the girl, but police did not believe other ways of dealing with it would "procure" her attendance. He agreed to the warrants because there was "strong public interest in proceeding to trial in such a case and I was not prepared to have it subverted".

He said he had explained to the girl the reason for her detention "and my regret that there had been no alternative".

He added: "I believe that the interests of justice have been served despite the 'cost' to which I have referred."

A Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said remanding a child witness was "an exceptional step" but all other options had been explored and exhausted.

"We understand that this course of action was both unwelcome and extremely difficult for the victim in this case, but there was a strong public interest in proceeding, to protect not just this victim but other children in the future. The defendant in this case has now been convicted for a very serious sexual offence and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/05/judge-bradford-bartfield-order-child-sex-abuse-victim

I'm sorry, but their excuses are just not good enough. You mean they had got to that stage without one person having gained her confidence who could have stayed with her, taken her to lunch, treated her with respect and like a human being?

Back to cut and paste eh sassy. Is it any wonder when we have senior leaders in the Labour party supporting Paedos and still not fired?

How is she to know who to trust.

I never use the C word to describe anyone, it disgusts me. But then again, so do you.

Fred Bloggs wrote:Back to cut and paste eh sassy. Is it any wonder when we have senior leaders in the Labour party supporting Paedos and still not fired?

How is she to know who to trust.

The majority of the topics here are copied from news stories with a link provided, just as Sassy has done here.

I fail to see how we would get accurate reporting of a news story without it. It wasn't a point of view, it was a news story.

Fred Bloggs wrote:Back to cut and paste eh sassy. Is it any wonder when we have senior leaders in the Labour party supporting Paedos and still not fired?

How is she to know who to trust.

Fred, we're in UK News discussing news items.

It is normal to copy the news item in to the original post then either put personal comments at the bottom or invite others to discuss it.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:Back to cut and paste eh sassy. Is it any wonder when we have senior leaders in the Labour party supporting Paedos and still not fired?

How is she to know who to trust.

Fred, we're in UK News discussing news items.

It is normal to copy the news item in to the original post then either put personal comments at the bottom or invite others to discuss it.

Thank you Andy, wasn't expecting that.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:Back to cut and paste eh sassy. Is it any wonder when we have senior leaders in the Labour party supporting Paedos and still not fired?

How is she to know who to trust.

Fred, we're in UK News discussing news items.

It is normal to copy the news item in to the original post then either put personal comments at the bottom or invite others to discuss it.

Thank you Andy, wasn't expecting that.

And on that note of awesomeness, can we get back to discussing the news rather than the people who post it?  ::D:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Thank you Andy, wasn't expecting that.

And on that note of awesomeness, can we get back to discussing the news rather than the people who post it?  ::D:: 

It was rather awesome wasn't it!

y

Ok, so you are saying you are a multiple ID.   That's nice to know.

Rock is accused of actual paedophilia, Harman was a junior lawyer on a group that had PIE affiliated to it, and she didn't become that lawyer until after they had been sidelined.   And she has spent all her political life fighting for victims.   Only a totally sad sap like you would try and equate the two.

PS, Oh my you just took your post out, because you realised what you had said, used the wrong ID

                


FRED BLOGGS AND PHOENIX ARE THE SAME PERSON, MULTIPLE ID

Sassy wrote:Ok, so you are saying you are a multiple ID.   That's nice to know.

Rock is accused of actual paedophilia, Harman was a junior lawyer on a group that had PIE affiliated to it, and she didn't become that lawyer until after they had been sidelined.   And she has spent all her political life fighting for victims.   Only a totally sad sap like you would try and equate the two.

PS, Oh my you just took your post out, because you realised what you had said, used the wrong ID

                


FRED BLOGGS AND PHOENIX ARE THE SAME PERSON, MULTIPLE ID

You are right for once but it still stands. You are one hypocritic bitch and have been on every forum. Multi ID versus two faced seems fair to me.

Phoenix wrote:y

Just in case you realise you left a bit of the post!


                 

Fred:

 :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: 

PS I'm ALWAYS right!

Phoenix wrote:

Sassy wrote:Ok, so you are saying you are a multiple ID.   That's nice to know.

Rock is accused of actual paedophilia, Harman was a junior lawyer on a group that had PIE affiliated to it, and she didn't become that lawyer until after they had been sidelined.   And she has spent all her political life fighting for victims.   Only a totally sad sap like you would try and equate the two.

PS, Oh my you just took your post out, because you realised what you had said, used the wrong ID

                


FRED BLOGGS AND PHOENIX ARE THE SAME PERSON, MULTIPLE ID

You are right for once but it still stands. You are one hypocritic bitch and have been on every forum. Multi ID versus two faced seems fair to me.

And just in case you try to remove this one as well.

I think it's best to put copy and paste stuff in quotes so people know it's not the OP saying it. Also, they can be rather long. Maybe just a bit would do, along with an opinion, and a link.

Nah, that really pisses me off, want to read the whole thing before i comment, and as I'm a very fast reader, don't care how long it is.   Learn to read people!  LOL

Sassy wrote:Fred:

 :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: :/pwn://: 

PS I'm ALWAYS right!  

Always right! A broken clock is right twice a day you on the other hand wait a long time in between bouts of getting it right.

You are no stranger yourself to multi ID as is the Minceman. Of course that's OK the usual left wing double standards apply then.

Adios.

You're Drinky as well aren't you? Don't forget, Fred was an SDP supporter, you haven't done any of that on here.

Sassy wrote:Nah, that really pisses me off, want to read the whole thing before i comment, and as I'm a very fast reader, don't care how long it is.   Learn to read people!  LOL

Add the very fast reader to
Double Maths.

Published author a whole load of other boasts. and all round bull shitter. A female walter mitty more like.  

You on the other hand can't remember who you are!

                     


Best laugh of the day.

Sassy wrote:You're Drinky as well aren't you?   Don't forget, Fred was an SDP supporter, you haven't done any of that on here.

Fred is a Scot. He also thinks you are a two faced witch. He's not happy about you going to Scotland though.

Phoenix wrote:

Sassy wrote:You're Drinky as well aren't you?   Don't forget, Fred was an SDP supporter, you haven't done any of that on here.

Fred is a Scot. He also thinks you are a two faced witch. He's not happy about you going to Scotland though.

Ahhhhh! So you are Drinky, and you are using Fred's persona AND Phoenix.

Are you seeing a psychiatrist for that?

Sassy wrote:

Phoenix wrote:

Fred is a Scot. He also thinks you are a two faced witch. He's not happy about you going to Scotland though.

Ahhhhh!   So you are Drinky, and you are using Fred's persona AND Phoenix.

Are you seeing a psychiatrist for that?

.....Probably Mephistopheles as well.

I've got tears running down my face laughing! He's not clever is he?

Sassy wrote:I've got tears running down my face laughing!   He's not clever is he?

Nope!   

Much better than medicine! Can I have a laugh like this every day please?     

I don't want to piss on your parade but Phoenix was outed as Drinky on IAF days ago. I seem to recall Fred was as well.

I'd already pm'd mates as soon as they started. The point was, silly bastard outed himself because he forgot who he was. You can't get stupider than that!!!!!

coalbunker wrote:I don't want to piss on your parade but Phoenix was outed as Drinky on IAF days ago. I seem to recall Fred was as well.

Have these ID's been conversing with each other by any chance?....If they have been, that's a bit disturbing.

Well I'm only saying that others on here knew days ago so it ain't news.

Perhaps he hears voices in his head!

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Oh it is, because the others that 'knew' didn't speak up, mates of his? Perhaps they will now realise that he's not up to the job, can't even remember who he is posting as!!!!!!!!   

Sassy wrote:Oh it is, because the others that 'knew' didn't speak up, mates of his?   Perhaps they will now realise that he's not up to the job, can't even remember who he is posting as!!!!!!!!    

They wouldn't, the ID's back up their scummy little RW gang.

I saw that Mephistopheles logged off quite quick, when his name was brought into the fray as well.

They only have to post once and it's obvious.

It's news to me, as I haven't been to the FlopHouse in days (quite the boring site). 'Scuse me while I lace up m' bannin' boots!

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's news to me, as I haven't been to the FlopHouse in days (quite the boring site). 'Scuse me while I lace up m' bannin' boots!

Yee Ha!!!!!

  

On Topic
WHY is the judge in trouble? think he did the right thing, it would be better if there were options for holding other than a cell but if she had been groomed then she would need to be persuaded, that fact she still had feeling for him doesn't change the illegality of it.

veya_victaous wrote:On Topic
WHY is the judge in trouble?  think he did the right thing, it would be better if there were options for holding other than a cell but if she had been groomed then she would need to be persuaded, that fact she still had feeling for him doesn't change the illegality of it.

I can't imagine a decision like this would have been taken lightly, hopefully the girl will feel differently when she's older. The very fact that she still feels so strongly for him shows how dangerous this man is and why action had to be taken to protect other children   

This is a court problem.

The courts are clogged up and that's why the girl had to wait - she was supposed to walk in and give her evidence - that's the way it works with youngsters.

There were delays - a system problem, not the fault of any individual.

I've no idea what could be clogging up the courts in Bradford...

Glad they caught Abid though - sounds like a bad taxi driver.

Some of his previous convictions nobody wants you to know about    :



He heard that Miskeen, who had a string of previous convictions, was given a community order in 2012 for punching his partner and was in breach of this order at the time of the offence against the girl.


2007:

A drink-driver who reached "wildly excessive speeds" trying to evade police has been jailed for two years.

Abid Miskeen was already banned from driving when he was spotted by officers when he was at the wheel of a powerful Volvo T5 last July.

After a 100mph chase Miskeen was eventually arrested after he crashed his car but was later granted bail by magistrates.

Mr Howie said that he had a 17-year-old female passenger in the car who was six months' pregnant.

Miskeen refused to answer any questions in interview and was given bail - only to be caught back behind the wheel in Janua



REHABILITATION AT ITS BEST!