Jean Patricia Gibbs v Charles Ronald Gibbs

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLady Justice Gloster,Lady Justice King
Judgment Date31 August 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] EWCA Civ 2418
Date31 August 2017
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket NumberCase No: B6/2017/2124

[2017] EWCA Civ 2418

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL DIVISION

Courtroom No. 72

Room E311

The Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before:

The Right Honourable Lady Justice Gloster

The Right Honourable Lady Justice King

Case No: B6/2017/2124

Between:
Jean Patricia Gibbs
and
Charles Ronald Gibbs

Mrs J P Gibbs appeared In Person

Ms K Illsley (instructed by Metcalfe, Copeman & Pettefar LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.

Lady Justice Gloster
1

This is an application by Jean Patricia Gibbs for permission to appeal out of time and, if permission is granted, her appeal against the order of Hayden J dated 29 June 2017.

2

By that order, Hayden J committed the appellant to prison for a period of nine months for breaching an earlier order of Roberts J dated 19 June 2017 which was reinforced with a penal notice.

3

The judgment of Hayden J is to be found at Gibbs v Gibbs [2017] EWHC 1700 (Fam). In his judgment, Hayden J sets out in detail, which it is not necessary for me to repeat, the lengthy procedural history of this matter. Like the judge, I share his view that this case has a dispiriting history.

4

The notice of appeal, and I interject to say that Mrs Gibbs has a right to appeal a committal order without the need to apply for leave, was lodged a few days out of time. It is in those circumstances that she needs permission to appeal out of time.

5

In support of her application to appeal out of time, she lodged with the court a detailed statement dated 14 August which explained the difficulties which she faced in prison in lodging her notice of appeal in time. Her difficulties in the circumstances were understandable. The respondent, her former husband, Mr Charles Ronald Gibbs, who appears by counsel, Ms Illsley, does not oppose the application for an extension of time. I would in all the circumstances permit this appeal to be made out of time given the difficulties which Mrs Gibbs clearly had in lodging the relevant documents within the prescribed period.

6

In support of her appeal, Mrs Gibbs set out her grounds in a one-page concise document which she lodged with the court on 12 August. Her grounds are as follows:

‘For a judge to order me to keep quiet about the fact that a crime of perjury committed by a Methodist minister in a court case centred on abuse and child protection concerns is not being investigated is clearly wrong.

2. All the orders and judgments made in this case are unsafe and unsound as a result of the perjury committed by [her former husband] Reverend Charles Gibbs.

3. This crime of perjury needs investigating. My appeal against Norfolk Police's failure to do so is currently with the IPCC.

4. In his judgment, Justice Hayden made no reference at all to the highly relevant comment made by Justice Simon Barham about Reverend Gibbs, “Clearly this man is a liar”.

'5. Until the family law courts acknowledge that they have made a huge mistake and believed the wrong person and acknowledge that the perjury committed by Reverend Gibbs needs investigating, then I will always be in contempt of court because I will not be silenced around a cover-up of abuse’.

7

She also on 5 August 2017 supplied a skeleton argument in support of her appeal, again which I will quote:

‘My skeleton argument, like my grounds of appeal, is very simple and straightforward. It is as follows: Unfortunately, at the very first hearing District Judge Hayes believed the wrong person, leading to one of the biggest miscarriages of justice and one of the most serious cover-ups of abuse of our times. Instead of sending me to prison for daring to point this out and refusing to go away and be quiet, Justice Hayden should, I believe, have been calling for a judicial review as to how abuse victims can have been failed so shockingly by the system in the way in which my son, daughter and I have been. If the crime of perjury committed by Reverend Gibbs had been investigated as I have requested, then clearly I would not have been in contempt of court. I would have expected a judge to insist that the evidence of this crime was investigated’.

8

The matter came before this court on the application for an extension of time on 24 August before McFarlane LJ and Moylan J. On that occasion due to administrative issues the appellant, Mrs Gibbs, was not produced from prison and attended only by video-link. She said, as was her right, that she wished to appear in person in court. For that reason, the application and, if successful, the appeal were adjourned to this date. On that occasion the court recorded that Mrs Gibbs had informed the court in response to the court's enquiry that she wanted to continue to represent himself and did not want legal representation. That remained the position today. Accordingly, the case was adjourned as I indicated.

9

I refer then to the judgment of Hayden J which sets out in detail the complete narrative account of the background of this case. I summarise a few salient facts so as to make this judgment comprehensible.

10

There were private law proceedings concerning the parties' two children which lasted from approximately 2000 until 2004. The son is now 30 and the daughter is now 24. Proceedings were resolved in such a way which, to the husband's chagrin, did not involve any direct contact between him and the children, but, as judges have pointed out, none of that was to do with any allegation made by Mrs Gibbs against her former husband. The various hearings which took place resulted in successive courts, as explained by Hayden J, categorically concluding that the allegations raised by Mrs Gibbs were unfounded and without justification. Indeed, as set out in paragraph five of Hayden J's judgment, at the start of a 10 day hearing before Munby J on 10 February 2002, Mrs Gibbs accepted, with the advice of counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to support her allegations and that the case was to proceed on the basis that her allegations of emotional, physical or sexual abuse against Mr Gibbs were unfounded. She also agreed that she would not repeat the allegations that she had made in any other forum or with any person or body, including the Methodist Church. A detailed schedule of contact with the daughter was ordered by consent, including a family assistance order and the father, Mr Gibbs, withdrew his application for contact to the son on medical advice relating to the son's condition.

11

Although the case had, at that stage, been settled by the agreement of the parties, both of whom were represented, Munby J nonetheless delivered a short judgment. Again, like Hayden J, I quote a paragraph of that judgment:

‘The advice which Mother has received and the decision which the mother has taken seems to me to be entirely appropriate in the circumstances. These matters must now once and for all finally be laid to rest. That, as I understand it, is the basis on which I am being invited to approve this order. I am sure that I do not have to say this, but it is important for the parties to appreciate this is intended to be a final order which maps out into the foreseeable future the pattern of Father's contact with the daughter and equally important the daughter's contact with her father’.

Unfortunately, that was a hope that never materialised.

12

Subsequently, again as Hayden J recites, scarcely six months later, the litigation came back before Johnson J in November 2002, again in relation to contact disputes between the parents. In a judgment dated 3 July 2003, after he had heard the parties give evidence, Johnson J said:

‘Having seen the mother give evidence now on more than one occasion, I do not find it at all surprising that she did not abide by the agreement she had made. In my...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jean Patricia Gibbs v Charles Ronald Gibbs
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • 5 August 2020
    ...26 W appealed but Gloster and King LJJ rejected her appeal on 31 August 2017 and found it was totally without merit Gibbs v Gibbs [2017] EWCA Civ 2418. 27 One example of the level of W's refusal to accept facts is that she argued before me, and has said in numerous emails, that her appeal ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT