Skip to main content

Gag Removed - Job Done

Some confusion has reigned in the blogosphere about today's points of order. My objective was to identify the parties in the Vicky Haigh / Doncaster case where Doncaster tried to Jail Vicky for talking in Parliament.

All the other details of the story are in the public domain, but an injunction prevented the parties being identified.

Now they can be identified.

Points of Order

5.26 pm

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey, was the subject of an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in Parliament. There was discussion earlier today as to whether that case was sub judice. An application was made to the court, a copy of which I have provided to your office. Additionally, I have provided to your office a copy of the court order in which it was deemed that she would not be jailed. I assume, therefore, that the case is not sub judice, in accordance with sub-paragraph (b)(ii) of the relevant resolution:

“Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.”

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order and for notice that he was to raise the matter this afternoon. I do not intend to have a discussion on the Floor of the House, notwithstanding what he said about documents that have been deposited, on whether a particular case is or is not sub judice. One of my duties is to uphold the resolution of the House with respect to sub judice issues. As far as this particular matter is concerned, I am perfectly prepared to discuss it privately with the hon. Gentleman. I will not take any further points of order on this matter today, and I feel sure that he will take his cue from the clear response that I have given.

John Hemming: On a separate point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may have a separate point of order, but it is a bit greedy to have two in one go. We will have someone else first so that he can save his vocal cords and we will revert to him in due course.

John Hemming: On a second point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I also gave notice, I wish to make another point about sub judice. There is a tendency for people to issue injunctions on the basis of a claim that they intend to issue proceedings, but then not actually to issue those proceedings. One such case is AMM, in which no proceedings have been issued. One would therefore presume that such a case never becomes sub judice.

Mr Speaker : The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman is almost boundless, and that fact will not have gone unnoticed in any part of the House. However, the initial observations that he made demonstrate to me that the second issue that he has raised is also one for consideration at our private meeting, which I feel sure he is eagerly awaiting.


Jonathan said…
Well done.
ian josephs said…
Ian josephs said......
The intention of the Human Rights Article 8 "right to privacy" was clearly to preserve the family from government interference.UK judges however have unaccountably interpreted this as authority for them to gag any parent whose children have been taken by social services for adoption or long term fostering .They do this ostensibly to protect the privacy of the children who have been taken from their parents ,many of whom need the their parents to speak up for them and not to be silenced.I always learned that statutes should be interpreted in the light of what seems to be the intention of those who drafted them.It is a pity that this is simple lesson has been forgotten by our family court judges !.
starcourse said…
Keep up your excellent work. These appalling abuses must end.
starcourse said…
well done. The appalling abuses must be stopped.
Dear John

If now the parties can be identified, does that mean that the "Reporting Restriction Order" that prevented Vicky and Liz from emailing people has been "discharged" as of April 26th when you published "Gag Removed - Job Done"?

We're psyching ourselves up for the Monday hearing!

john said…
In short no.

Best not to ask advice in the comments section, though.
Jake Maverick said…
Thnaks for battling on John, you give hope to some of the more gullible at least that just talking will actually achieve soemthing, like 'justice' one day.....

Jake Maverick
Martin said…
"My objective was to identify the parties"

Murlenacampbell said…
My case is in Edmonton family court and concerns the welfare of my 6year old daughter whom has been suffering significat harm at the hands of her father walthamforest are ignoring her wishes to be returned home and is becomming very sick after multiple disclosures please help me get my baby home. She is being seen by a walthamforest senior social worker and she is in harringey borough and they have taken no steps to ensure her safety. Her hair is falling out she has had sore private parts. Her family doctor has been changed without my concent. No assessments have been carrired out and after 6months its the first time I have had my opinion sort from the walthamforest social worker this is due to an order for a report to be submitted. Save our children this has to stop NOW.
John Hemming said…
Murlena - read this:

Hi John

Thanks for sending. Please give her our contact details and ask her to get in touch with us.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…