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.

Comments

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!

Sabine
http://victims-unite.net
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"

Why?
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.



www.womenagainstrape.net

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…