Brian Gerrish: "Now this is what we covered yesterday: Very quickly, a case going back to November 2015 where three Hampshire county council social workers were found wanting by a judge; lying on oath; altering basically reports that were taken through as evidence; and withholding evidence from the court. So these were serious charges that the judge made in his judgment. The judge`s opinion was then overturned by Hampshire council working with an organisation looking after professional standards for social workers. And so our first point was that this is quite amazing that it doesn`t matter what a judge says in court: If you`re in the right organisation you simply overturn his judgement."
"What`s going on here is a court case where the judge is refusing to accept video evidence of child abuse. So the evidence is there to show what is going on in this particular case but the judge is simply saying `No. My eyes don`t want to see this evidence, so it can`t be brought into court.` So therefore the court is running a completely alternative court case."
"This situation was challenged. You can obviously freeze the screen to look at the detail of the excerpt that I`ve given you. I can only give you so much."
"The President can only deal with the cases that comes before him in a judicial capacity. He cannot investigate, comment or give advice on the decisions made by other judges. This is not out of any lack of concern, but because to do so would undermine the principle that judges are free to decide how cases should be conducted. He does not intervene on behalf of a party in any case and accordingly, it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the matters you raise. If you are unhappy with a judge`s decision, order or ruling then you must follow the appeal process, although it is not guaranteed that there would be a right of appeal."
"The President cannot assist you further."
"What we`re essentially saying is where there is video evidence of child abuse family court judges can simply say `NO no no. I don`t want to see that. I`m going to make my judgment without seeing the evidence of the actual child abuse.` This is astonishing ... and shows that we cannot trust family court decisions in any shape or form..."
Mike Robinson: "So to do so would undermine the principle that judges are free to decide how cases should be conducted. So if you have a corrupt judge - and nobody can deny that such a thing exists - if you have a corrupt judge what this email seems to be saying is the President of the family law division, the head of the department as it were, has no power to investigate or deal with the corruption of a judge."
"That`s absolutely right. And I come back to the fact that what we`re dealing with here is not some sort of hearsay; we`re dealing with video footage of child abuse. So just a remarkable admission by Sir James Munby`s office. Now it has come from his office; it`s possible that Sir James isn`t really aware of this reply. But it has come from his office..."
Alex Thomson: "Yes we keep talking about Sir James because he`s a very conflicted character and he had some good in his life before, I think; so what`s happening with him now is anyone`s guess. It`s the same with anyone in high authority...The creation of the family division and the removal of juries allows these prima facie mis-trials .. to occur because judges are acting as juries... "