Skip to main content

Italian Mother: Statement by John Hemming

Response to statement from Judiciary:
"I welcome the transfer of the case from Chelmsford County Court to the High Court in front of the president of the family division.  The appointment of the president of the family division was a very positive step and I am certain that any applications to him will be heard justly."

"I remain concerned that many decisions taken by the family courts are taken by the magistrates court (the family proceedings court) and are then appealed to the county court.  This means that domestic proceedings can be exhausted without a case getting out of the area in which it is considered.  This means that there is never any public judgment and the case in the UK has come to an end.  All that people can then do is to take their case to Strasbourg."

Comment about failure of Essex to follow proper proceedings:
"The rules are straightforward when it comes to foreign nationals and care proceedings.  The foreign country concerned should be contacted through their central authority (in Italy's case part of the Justice Ministry).  This clearly did not happen and for this Essex County Council are clearly in the wrong."

Comment following Essex County Council's press release:
"Essex have not managed to explain why no-one in the wider extended family was competent to look after the baby when they were already looking after two of her siblings.  Additionally Essex have not explained why this baby was in their control to get adopted when the mother always intended to return to Italy."







Comments

Anonymous said…
You ask the question why this lady was detained for 6 weeks before the caesarian operation.Please see the rules regarding Mental Health Tribunals I.e when an application may be made and the time limits for when it must take place . I feel that this might have some bearing on her situation . It might be be that she was never advised of her rights to a Tribunal and representation and that in itself would fall foul of the rules.

Apart from a few journalists that I can count on one hand the majority of the media have been burying their head in the sand for too long. In 1999 I was made aware of a 17 year old pregnant young woman who had no mental health problems but who was categorically denying that she had ever been abused ( Factitious illness) by her parents. She was removed and isolated and gave birth in hospital and immediately after the birth she was taken to a Psychiatric Hospital and medicated. The baby was adopted and the young woman ( we believe still under the effects of Valium) was taken and left with a blanket at a railway station. Luckily she was looked after by railway station staff who eventually found her a permanent place to live.

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…