Skip to main content

Family Justice System: Petition

John Hemming:

I have an example of egregious behaviour by the family justice system to present.

The petition states:

The Petition of a British Citizen

Declares that a Local Authority has recently told a mother that she will not be allowed contact with her adopted child if she continues to protest outside the Family Court.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the government to legislate to prevent Local Authorities from using control over contact with their children to prevent parents from protesting about the unfairness of the Family Justice System in England and Wales.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.


sparrow1 said…
Does Parliament need to legislate on this subject? Surely a citizen has a right to protest guaranteed under the HRA? Has the Family Court committed to this gagging policy too - although the Family Courts regularly abuse human rights of both children and adults getting them to commit an order in writing preventing such a protest might be a toughie for the LA to perform.

I doubt the government would be interested in inacting any such legislation - even if it was needed - they are allowing the Family Courts to dig themselves into their hole day-by-day. I think the reason (Warning - conspiracy theory approaching!) is so they can justify the executive being able to excert more control over the judiciary in the future.

One thing Labour hates is judges bouncing their pet projects (anti-terrorism law, deportations etc.) Thanks to the Family Courts Divisions, if it becomes necessary the government will be able to justify being able to introduce laws to have, say, the facility for the government to have judges sacked, on the basis that the Family Courts Divisions are rogue, and only Government intervention could resolve the abuses. Seeing as the judiciary won't solve or address the problems - every Judge in the land is now vulnerable to lawful intervention from the State(and they thought Father4Justice were their biggest headache!)

The public won't accept the judiciaries bleatings about the threat to freedoms if the judiciary are rendered under the control by the State; all the government would do would be to drip-feed Family Court scandals to the media.

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…