Skip to main content

Answer the Question

Having found a few spare minutes outside Standing Committee A etc I managed to issue the papers for R v The Prime Minister ex parte Hemming yesterday.

So far the Cabinet Secretary, Prime Minister and Prime Minister's solicitors (Treasury Solicitors) have been unable to give a substantive response to my complaint that Ministers of the Crown don't answer questions. There are now very tight deadlines within which they are forced to provide a substantive response.

Judicial Review has two main stages. The first stage is to get "permission" for JR. This involves the papers being issued, served a response (ackknowledgement of service) from the other side and a desk consideration by the Judge. That can then be taken to a permission hearing if needed.

In this case the Speaker's Counsel is an "interested party" because of the issue relating to the 1688 Bill of Rights. However, the Speaker has the view that the content of questions is not a matter for him.


TonyF said…
And how much will all this cost the taxpayer John?
john said…
Bad government and tyrannical government costs billions if not more.
TonyF said…
That wasn't the question and you know it! Who is footing the bill for this little game of yours?
TonyF said…
my complaint that Ministers of the Crown don't answer questions.

MPs are fairly good at this as well!
john said…
The costs are unclear. If the government give in straight away then it won't cost them anything.

Judicial Reviews are normally estimated at about 25K although my experience is that the figure is considerably less.
TonyF said…
So knowing how much this is going to cost the taxpayer such as people in your constituency, you're still going for it?
Why don't you just ask him at question time?
john said…
The JR is about questions that have been asked and not answered.

They have been asked verbally and in writing a number of times and still not answered.
TonyF said…
And I've just asked you a question and you have not answered it.

Why (now listen this time) not ask Tony Blair at Prime Ministers questions instead of wasting taxpayers money which the Lib Dems have criticised the Government for doing.
Or are you just trying to make a name for yourself in case of another leadership battle?
john said…

The point is that they don't answer.

You can see Blair's response to my question of wednesday as a good example of this.
TonyF said…
A letter. You know full well what I'm talking about re Prime Ministers Questions. How can you have the nerve to attack this Government, albeit a useless bunch, over questions when you yourself won't give a straight answer?
john said…
I get about 1 shot at PMQ every year. Even then the question is not answered.

I can, however, ask a substantial number of written questions. They, however, are not answered properly.

Hence the reason for the JR.

That is exactly the answer to your question.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…