Skip to main content

Today in Business Questions

I have been contacted about my comments in parliament today. My response is: "It is a legally complex situation and I am not saying anything outside parliamentary proceedings".

On the wider question, however. I would say:
"I am concerned about two things. Firstly the development of a law of privacy without the proper statutory underpinning or public support. Secondly, the lack of accountability for super injunctions."

It is parliament's role to deal with both of these issues.

Hansard has now published the exchange:
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): In a secret hearing, Fred Goodwin has obtained a super-injunction preventing him from being identified as a banker. Will the Government hold a debate, or make a statement, on freedom of speech, and whether there is one law for the rich, such as Fred Goodwin, and another for the poor, such as Lee Gilliland who has had his mental capacity removed on the basis of a report from his GP that he is not allowed to see?

Sir George Young: I know that in a week’s time my hon. Friend will have a debate in Westminster Hall which may impinge on some of these issues. I will raise with the appropriate Minister the matter that he has just raised, but it seems to impinge on the responsibility of the courts and any Minister would be cautious about commenting on that.

Comments

Jerry said…
While I have the up most Respect for Sir George Young, he comments just like the Majority of Ministers in Chambers, unless he has witness these situations first hand like you John then he doesn't really know what goes on and how one sided these unfair cases and hearings are taking place daily throughout the courts in the land, Article 6 of the HRA seems to not cut muster in the courts of the land any more and its people like Sir George Young who is in a position to act don't

""but it seems to impinge on the responsibility of the courts and any Minister would be cautious about commenting on that"".

Why would any Minister be Cautious? Truth hurts doesn't it.

Leaving it up to the courts is why these situations continue to occur and looking at the case of Lee Gilliland only highlights how messed up the courts really are, they need to be held accountable and the Judges who continue to allow this to happen should be removed from the Bench
john said…
It is about separation of powers. That is why parliament needs strengthening and to be more assertive.
Jerry said…
John, I just hope your debate Sir George Young mentions really does make an impression

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…