Home > Stephen Pollard

Monday 12 May 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Peter Hoskin

Pete suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Compelling but plain wrong

Tuesday, 18th March 2008

No doubt there is a legal reason why I am wrong, but having read the full judgement in the Mills/McCartney divorce, it seems to me that however awful Heather Mills might be, she has a pretty convincing argument that it should not be made public.

First off, the judge is damning in his appraisal of her:

Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.

He then goes on to demolish her claims about her success and wealth. And it is, I have to admit, pretty engrossing reading someone's probity and stories being taken apart by a judge

But should it be? Why should I, or anyone else, be allowed to read the intimate details of their marriage and their wealth, simply because they are divorcing? And why must their addresses be published? Isn't that plain wrong? It's a private matter. It ought to stay that way.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Greg

March 18th, 2008 5:03pm

You read the full judgement? Clearly you have too much time on your hands!

Herbert Thornton

March 18th, 2008 8:28pm

One of the most basic principles of any decent justice system is (except in a very few cases - e.g. where national security is involved) that its actions and the reasons for them must be open to public scrutiny. It is one of the best guarantees that nothing underhand or tyrannical occurs. The ancient maxim about it goes something like this -

"Justice must not only be done, it must be manifestly seen to be done."

This principle applies in Heather Mills' case and is far more important than her desire to avoid temporary personal embarrassment.

Interestingly, there's currently a controversy in Canada about a secret trial planned for next week -

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/macleans-joins-the-battle.html

Max Kaye

March 18th, 2008 9:30pm

I second Greg.

This case is tabloid stuff.

Verity

March 18th, 2008 11:19pm

Well, Max Kaye, I agree with Herbert Thornton. The quality of one of the litigants isn't the point. The point is that the trial is seen to be conducted fairly to both sides and that the reasoning of the judge is transparent,no matter who is in front of him. Frankly, if I were the judge I might have taken a shot at Heather for pouring a caraffe of water over Fiona Shackleton's head. (Though doubtless the formidable Ms Shackleton will be taking care of this issue herself.)

Denning

March 19th, 2008 9:29am

Why should someones adress be a private matter in a free society? Why should a case in the public courts be concealed? It is always going to be of legal interest and could provide precedent?

Max Kaye

March 19th, 2008 6:27pm

Verity, I don't disagree with Herbert Thornton's comment. I do, however, find the whole McCartney divorce story nearly as boring and pointless as Diana's costly inquest. It is the high interest in the case(s) that I find unappealing and hence tabloid.

I must add that the 'formidable' Ms Shackleton looks much more attractive when wet. She should adopt the style.

I must say,