Skip to main content

Parents to Lobby Parliament

Parents who have been victims of miscarriages of justice and inappropriate prosecutions are planning a lobby of MPs next week. A meeting between Bill Bache, the legal advisor for Justice for Families and John Hemming MP, Chairman of Justice for families, is planning a lobby of MPs. Ian and Angela Gay, Angela Cannings and Marianne Williams have agreed to come to jointly lobby MPs on 28th March to call for changes in procedure and an end to false prosecutions of parents.

Bill Bache, the legal advisor, said, "If a Doctor does not know why a child has died then they should say that. They should not point the finger at parents merely because the cause of death is unclear."

John Hemming MP said, "There is a systematic problem in the operation of justice in both the criminal and family courts. The whole system needs an overhaul."

ENDS

Note for Editors:
Ian and Angela Gay were recently acquitted in a retrial where they were alleged to have poisoned their adopted son with salt and also shaken him.

Angela Cannings was released after being falsely imprisoned for the death of two of her children who died from SIDS.

Marianne Williams was acquitted in late 2006 when the doctor treating her son who died blamed her for poisoning him with salt.

Comments

Rightsfighter said…
Just to remind readers that there is the "Awareness Day" vigil at the Houses of Parliament relating to false allegations of sexual abuse the day before, on the 27th March. It is important to understand that parents lose children in these cases too.

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).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

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.

LORD HEWART CJ:
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…