For the third day running, Angela Power-Disney has live-streamed a Facebook video concerning an in camera family court case in which she has been meddling. But last night’s “#BabyH update” came with a difference. Angie opened with this:
I’ve just been served with papers, as have the parents, following papers we served this morning both in the district court and on the applicants that got the order on Baby H. So the temperature’s increasing, heating up here…I’m going to open up my documents online because it may be a cease and desist with live-streaming on the case.
Hoaxtead trolls, which are the government-paid organisation that is attempting to cover up the Hampstead case, made it their business to inform the courts in Monaghan that I had slipped up and accidentally mentioned the parents’ first names in the last couple of days’ live-streaming. So I was ordered not to disclose details of what went on in closed court and I haven’t done. And with regard to the parents’ names being accidentally mentioned, first names only, we’ve already taken legal advice and given that this case was covered extensively in mainstream media all over Northern Ireland including on television, um…er, mea culpa, you know, accidental possible contempt of court but as I say, given that the case was already in mainstream media, and that that I haven’t breached, I haven’t disclosed any details of what went on in the court.
Surprisingly, Angela actually got one thing correct: one of our team members really did report her to the court. Here’s what they wrote on Monday:
I’m writing in relation to a current case being heard at Monaghan Court, involving placement of a newborn baby, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx.
A woman named Angela Power-Disney has involved herself in this case and states that she was acting in the role of McKenzie friend at the most recent hearing. She says that she was cautioned by the judge at that time not to reveal any details of the case. However, today (7 August 2017) she publicly released a video on Facebook, in which she discusses the case in some detail. At one point she names the mother; at another, she invites the baby’s father onto the video to make a public statement. In addition, she has revealed many details of the case, both in this video and on her public Facebook page.
I would appreciate it if you could pass this information along to the judge involved in the case.
And following Angela’s second live-stream on Facebook, our colleague followed up with this on Tuesday:
I wrote yesterday to inform the court of disturbing behaviour by Angela Power-Disney, who has been acting as a McKenzie friend in the case of Xxxxxx and Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, currently being heard in Monaghan Court. (I know the names of the individuals involved only because Ms Power-Disney has published them on her Facebook page several times, and named the mother in her first video regarding the case, which I sent you yesterday.)
Ms Power-Disney has just published another “#BabyH update” video to her Facebook page, linked here: [link redacted]
She is very clearly aware of the publication ban on the case, and yet she has both parents speaking on today’s video, and once again, she names the father. At the end of yesterday’s video, she stated that she knows she might be breaking the law and could go to prison, but she doesn’t care. “Bring it on” are her exact words.
I am acutely aware of the importance of confidentiality in cases such as this, for the protection of the child involved. I hope you will pass the information about Ms Power-Disney on to the judge involved, as I believe Ms Power-Disney is not only flouting the law and the judge’s specific instructions, but violating this family’s right to privacy.
Yesterday morning our team member told us they had received confirmation from the court that these concerns had been passed along to the appropriate authorities.
Yesterday evening’s live-stream
According to Angela, a court official warned her again yesterday against naming names on her Facebook live-streams and posts. Angie the one-time “Young Journalist of the Year” stated in last night’s live-stream,
I’m allowed to discuss contact as far as I understand, I’m just not allowed to say what goes on…in camairrr…er, whatever it’s called, in camera, in closed court. I probably won’t be their McKenzie friend this Friday.
Oddly, we don’t know too many court journalists who are unaware of the meaning, let alone the pronunciation, of “in camera”, but hey ho. Live and learn.
We do find it amusing that Fearless Angie “probably won’t be their McKenzie friend” at the next court hearing. Although she claims she’s not afraid to face the consequences of her actions, and indeed, she denies she’s done anything wrong, she’s still not keen to face the judge, who will likely not be terribly pleased with her.
She stated that “papers were served as and where they had to be served” and that “we’ve just been counter-served at my home”, though she did not specify the nature of those papers. She then turned to the envelope she received yesterday, and opened it on air.
So now….[reaches for enevelope]…it says on this, I’ll see if I’m breaching the law again…Social Services…[reads silently]…Oh! that’s interesting. They’re upset because I read snippets of the handwritten notes which the mother had asked…because there’s two social workers documenting for the two hours’ contact today, there’s two social workers documenting every sneeze, every smile, every breastfeed. Which is intrusive, and which was not court ordered. But we’ve been co-operating with that. So I’ll just go ahead and read this out.
We act on behalf of the Child and Family Agency on whose instructions we are writing to you. This letter refers to the proceedings in which you were permitted to act as a McKenzie friend for [redacted]…for Daddy P [yes, she named him again] on Friday 4 August at Monaghan District Court. The Child and Family Agency has been made aware that you are reading confidential notes and videos which are being posted on Facebook, which notes you are presumed to have obtained from Mr and Mrs Hmm-Hmm. The notes were requested from [redacted], and she provided them to Mr and Mrs Hmm-Hmm on the basis that they were private and confidential.
Unsurprisingly, Angie argues that she and the parents were not told that the notes were private and confidential. However, at the end of her first update on Monday, she made a rather large performance of stating that she knew that reading the notes out was illegal and that she could go to prison for it, but she didn’t care. “Bring it on”, she said at that time.
Now, though, she claims that reading the notes on Facebook was perfectly fine, and the child and family agency is lying when they claim the notes were meant to be private and confidential.
More from the letter from the Child and Family Agency’s legal team:
Your attention is hereby brought to the provisions of Section 31 of the Child Care Act 1991–2015. This is to request you to cease and desist publishing and broadcasting those notes on Facebook and any other forums of any nature….Your behaviour will be brought to the attention of the court Friday, and the child and family agency reserve the right to bring a prosecution against you pursuant to Section 31 of the said Act.
[Here’s the relevant section: 31.—(1) No matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a child who is or has been the subject of proceedings under Part III , IV or VI shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast.]
Please note that this letter and the enclosed documents relating to in camera proceedings should be shown only to a solicitor acting on your behalf.
Yes, you read that right. The legal letter which Angela so blithely read out on Facebook live-stream is clearly not intended to be shared publicly. Angela’s excuse: “I plead live broadcasting”.
We wonder how that’ll hold up in court?