By . Steve Doughty . PUBLISHED: . 19:21 EST, 2 May 2013 . | . UPDATED: . 01:42 EST, 3 May 2013 . Senior judges are to ban the secret jailing of defendants for contempt of court, the Daily Mail can reveal. The decision comes after emergency talks over the way a woman was given a prison sentence for trying to take her father out of a care home. Wanda Maddocks, 50, was handed a five-month jail term by the Court of Protection in her absence – and without being represented by a lawyer. Shock: Wanda Maddocks, left, was jailed 'in secret' by the Court of Protection for trying to remove her father John, right, from a care home . New instructions for judges will lay down that no one should be sentenced to prison for contempt of court behind closed doors. A judge ruled that Miss Maddocks’ efforts to remove her 80-year-old father from the care home where she believed his life was in danger amounted to wilful defiance of the court. The sentence was imposed by Judge Martin Cardinal at the Court of Protection in Birmingham without naming any of those involved. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling asked for a review into the dealings of the Court of Protection following the Mail's highlighting of the Maddocks case . No record of his ruling was published, . and secrecy rules forbade anyone to name Miss Maddocks, her father, the . local council that asked for her to be imprisoned or the social worker . who gave evidence against her. Judge . Cardinal opened his court to the public for the sentencing, but the . unlocking of the courtroom doors was announced  only to passers-by who . happened to be in the corridor outside. The . Mail’s report of the Maddocks case provoked a major row over the Court . of Protection, which decides on the affairs of individuals too ill to . make decisions for themselves. The Court habitually sits in secret and . few of its hearings have ever been subjected to public scrutiny. The depth of political concern became clear yesterday when it emerged that Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wrote to Sir James Munby, the judge in charge of family justice, to ask him to include the Court of Protection in a review currently under way into the workings of the family courts. The family courts – which handle cases of divorce and child custody, and which rule when children are taken into care or put up for adoption – are rarely open to the public and usually publish only anonymous details of judgements. Sir James is currently exploring ways to make them more open. The talks on the Maddocks  case and secret imprisonment involved both Sir James, who is head of the Family Division of the High Court, and Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, who is the head of the judiciary. Their decision to ban secret sentencing for contempt was taken before Sir James received the  Grayling letter. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice (left) and Sir James Munby , the head of the Family Division of the High Court (right) have decided to ban secret sentencing for contempt cases . Judge Cardinal sentenced Miss Maddocks last August after hearing that she had repeatedly broken orders not to interfere with her father’s life at the care home. He found she had helped take her father to a court hearing and had also taken him to see a solicitor; that she had tried to publicise the case; had left offensive messages for social workers; and that she had given the 80-year-old former painter and decorator a wooden cross to ward off evil at his care home. The judge said she had ‘the attitude of someone who is simply not going to obey court orders’. Miss Maddocks was arrested 11 days after her sentencing by police and court officials who waited for her when she visited the care home. She has said she was assaulted in Foston Hall prison in Derby by a fellow inmate who would  not believe she had not committed a serious crime or had a public criminal trial. Judge Cardinal, left, also imposed a suspended prison sentence on Miss Maddocks' brother Ivan, right . She served six weeks before being released after apologising to Judge Cardinal. The judge also imposed a two-month suspended sentence for contempt on Miss Maddocks’ brother Ivan for his role in taking their father to a court hearing and to see a Birmingham lawyer. The suspended sentence, which was also imposed in secret, was handed down at a separate hearing in July. Last week, after the Mail learned of the case, Judge Cardinal agreed that Miss Maddocks and her brother could be named, along with the council, Stoke-on-Trent. The judgment in which sentence was handed down was also published for the first time. Miss Maddocks’ father John died in January. Miss Maddocks is thought to be the first person imprisoned by the Court of Protection. However no one can be certain because of the secrecy under which the court regularly works. Family courts also have powers to sentence those who fail to obey court rulings with imprisonment. However the power is rarely used, not least because in family separation cases judges believe that to jail a mother who defies a court would harm her children. One notable recent case of a family court imprisonment involved fixer to the rich Scot Young, jailed for six months by a High Court judge in January for persistent failure to account during his divorce case for the disappearance of his £400million fortune. The sentencing decision was made in open court. Current civil procedure rules which govern the operation of the courts say that anyone sentenced to jail should be named. Sir James Munby yesterday replied to Mr Grayling to say he would consider the Justice Secretary’s letter about the Court of Protection. Sir James is expected to wait before sending a more detailed response.
New rules for judges after the Mail revealed Wanda Maddocks case .
50-year-old jailed 'in secret' for trying to take her father out of care .
Judges will not be able to jail anyone for contempt of court in secret .
By . Steve Doughty . PUBLISHED: . 19:21 EST, 2 May 2013 . | . UPDATED: . 01:42 EST, 3 May 2013 . Senior judges are to ban the secret jailing of defendants for contempt of court, the Daily Mail can reveal. The decision comes after emergency talks over the way a woman was given a prison sentence for trying to take her father out of a care home. Wanda Maddocks, 50, was handed a five-month jail term by the Court of Protection in her absence – and without being represented by a lawyer. Shock: Wanda Maddocks, left, was jailed 'in secret' by the Court of Protection for trying to remove her father John, right, from a care home . New instructions for judges will lay down that no one should be sentenced to prison for contempt of court behind closed doors. A judge ruled that Miss Maddocks’ efforts to remove her 80-year-old father from the care home where she believed his life was in danger amounted to wilful defiance of the court. The sentence was imposed by Judge Martin Cardinal at the Court of Protection in Birmingham without naming any of those involved. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling asked for a review into the dealings of the Court of Protection following the Mail's highlighting of the Maddocks case . No record of his ruling was published, . and secrecy rules forbade anyone to name Miss Maddocks, her father, the . local council that asked for her to be imprisoned or the social worker . who gave evidence against her. Judge . Cardinal opened his court to the public for the sentencing, but the . unlocking of the courtroom doors was announced  only to passers-by who . happened to be in the corridor outside. The . Mail’s report of the Maddocks case provoked a major row over the Court . of Protection, which decides on the affairs of individuals too ill to . make decisions for themselves. The Court habitually sits in secret and . few of its hearings have ever been subjected to public scrutiny. The depth of political concern became clear yesterday when it emerged that Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wrote to Sir James Munby, the judge in charge of family justice, to ask him to include the Court of Protection in a review currently under way into the workings of the family courts. The family courts – which handle cases of divorce and child custody, and which rule when children are taken into care or put up for adoption – are rarely open to the public and usually publish only anonymous details of judgements. Sir James is currently exploring ways to make them more open. The talks on the Maddocks  case and secret imprisonment involved both Sir James, who is head of the Family Division of the High Court, and Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, who is the head of the judiciary. Their decision to ban secret sentencing for contempt was taken before Sir James received the  Grayling letter. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice (left) and Sir James Munby , the head of the Family Division of the High Court (right) have decided to ban secret sentencing for contempt cases . Judge Cardinal sentenced Miss Maddocks last August after hearing that she had repeatedly broken orders not to interfere with her father’s life at the care home. He found she had helped take her father to a court hearing and had also taken him to see a solicitor; that she had tried to publicise the case; had left offensive messages for social workers; and that she had given the 80-year-old former painter and decorator a wooden cross to ward off evil at his care home. The judge said she had ‘the attitude of someone who is simply not going to obey court orders’. Miss Maddocks was arrested 11 days after her sentencing by police and court officials who waited for her when she visited the care home. She has said she was assaulted in Foston Hall prison in Derby by a fellow inmate who would  not believe she had not committed a serious crime or had a public criminal trial. Judge Cardinal, left, also imposed a suspended prison sentence on Miss Maddocks' brother Ivan, right . She served six weeks before being released after apologising to Judge Cardinal. The judge also imposed a two-month suspended sentence for contempt on Miss Maddocks’ brother Ivan for his role in taking their father to a court hearing and to see a Birmingham lawyer. The suspended sentence, which was also imposed in secret, was handed down at a separate hearing in July. Last week, after the Mail learned of the case, Judge Cardinal agreed that Miss Maddocks and her brother could be named, along with the council, Stoke-on-Trent. The judgment in which sentence was handed down was also published for the first time. Miss Maddocks’ father John died in January. Miss Maddocks is thought to be the first person imprisoned by the Court of Protection. However no one can be certain because of the secrecy under which the court regularly works. Family courts also have powers to sentence those who fail to obey court rulings with imprisonment. However the power is rarely used, not least because in family separation cases judges believe that to jail a mother who defies a court would harm her children. One notable recent case of a family court imprisonment involved fixer to the rich Scot Young, jailed for six months by a High Court judge in January for persistent failure to account during his divorce case for the disappearance of his £400million fortune. The sentencing decision was made in open court. Current civil procedure rules which govern the operation of the courts say that anyone sentenced to jail should be named. Sir James Munby yesterday replied to Mr Grayling to say he would consider the Justice Secretary’s letter about the Court of Protection. Sir James is expected to wait before sending a more detailed response.
defendants for contempt of court, the Daily Mail sentence for trying to take her father out of a care home. Wanda Maddocks, 50, was handed a 'in secret' by the Court of Protection for trying home . New instructions for judges will lay down