Skip to main content

Italian Mother: Mostyn Judgment Published (with transcript of hearing)

The judiciary have now published the judgment in respect of the Caesarean. It is here.

I remain concerned that it does not appear that she was told that this was being proposed. If it is true that she had previously elected to have a Caesarean then it sounds odd that she was not asked on this occasion, but instead driven through a legal and medical procedure in which she had no input. I remain worried about how mental capacity is removed and it does not appear that the representative of the official solicitor who was "representing her interests" actually spoke to her. One would think that if she had been asked she would have agreed given that she agreed previously. Reading between the lines of the judgment the main issue appears to have been that she did not want to give birth in England. (understandably in retrospect)

There are a number of questions about the details of the judgment. (such as what her condition actually was, whether she was being treated for the wrong disorder and the true risks of the situation) All of these issues will take some time to sort out. The wrong disorder is the most concerning as this would be the reason why she would not have been recovering (and did recover in Italy) because the treatment would have made her worse.

However, the question as to how people who are deemed "too stupid" to make decisions for themselves are treated in the process of deciding whether or not they are indeed "too stupid" (ie lack capacity) or indeed what the decision should be remains open.


Anonymous said…
This lady should make an application for her Medical Records.i
AS said…
"Too stupid"????

Either you do not understand what the legal concept of capacity is, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it for your own purposes.

Either way, this comment makes it totally clear why you are not the appropriate person to be taking such a high profile role in this case.
I would like to point up that although in relation to the forced cesarean Justice Mostyn has emphasized that decisions were taken only in the best interest of the mother, it seems that overall her best interest has not been taken into consideration. In fact, she was kept under care (against her will) for several weeks, and then hastily dispatched to Italy after the baby had been delivered and when she still was in very bad conditions, as the ruling of Judge Newton explicitly highlights. One has the bitter feeling that the general interest was ONLY to have the baby safely delivered without any concern for the mother.

It is also a fact that when the woman arrived to the UK she was well enough to go through a work course with an airline, and when she was back in the UK to argue her case in front of Judge Newton she had fully recovered to the point of impressing the judge. It seems that her conditions harshly deteriorated only when she was under care in the UK, thereby suggesting that the consultant psychiatrist Dr. Adimulam might have not been provided cure for the right disorder, in spite of having potential access the to woman health record through her Italian family and through Italian health care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
RobJ said…
Mr Hemmings. Unfortunately you show a staggering lack of understanding of Mental Health issues, The Mental Health Act, and particularly the issue of capacity. Some of your observations are crass and insensitive bordering on just plain stupid.

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…