Skip to main content

Italian Mother: Statement by John Hemming (includes comments from mother and italian judgment)

Report of Conversation with mother:
John Hemming  said "I have spoken to the mother concerned who has been very badly treated by the authorities in England.  She has said to me that she would like to thank all the British people who have sent messages of support."

Parliamentary proceedings
"Now that we know that the case is still live and to be heard by Munby P it is clear that the case is sub judice.  That limits the range of parliamentary proceedings that can be used.   I have, therefore, tabled a Motion in parliament relating to the failures of Essex County Council in terms of Communication with Foreign Institutions.  This should appear tomorrow.

Essex County Council's failure to follow international law
Under the Vienna convention article 36 and also under Brussels II Bis revised  (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) articles 15, 55 and 56 the Italian authorities should have been contacted about both the mother’s imprisonment and the care of the baby.  However, they were not.

In 2011 Essex (in response to an FOI request) said they had no contact with High Commissions and Embassies. In 2010-11 they had 21 children who were foreign nationals who had become "looked after".  This was as part of 138 who had become "looked after" in the previous 5 years.  It is clear, therefore, that they were not following international law then and have not followed international law in this case."

The government are also at fault because they have refused to even try to keep track of which children in the care system are foreign nationals.  This could be done easily in the SSDA903 return.

Comments on judgment:
I welcome the publication of the judgment on bailii.  It is available here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html.

We still need answers.  
We need answers from the Mental Health trust who need to explain why the mother was kept in England for 6 weeks prior to being given the C Section.
We need the publication of the judgment about the caesarean section from the court of protection.
We need an explanation of why no attempt was made to allow the father to participate in  the court case. He may not be allowed to enter the UK for immigration reasons, but should have been allowed proper participation on the phone or via video link at least.
We also need an explanation from the local authority as to why when the grandmother is deemed capable of looking after two children she could not look after the third.

On the Italian proceedings
"More details are coming out about the proceedings in the Italian courts.  It is clear that Essex has misrepresented the court hearings in Italy.  The court of first instance ruled itself not competent to rule in the matter and referred it to the tribunal in Rome who in October 2013  declared that it “cannot recognise the ruling of the English court because it is contrary to Italian and international norms of public order”.
Italian: "non poter riconoscere il provvedimento della Corte inglese perchè contrario alle norme italiane e internazionali di ordine pubblico".

Comments

Mike Clarke said…
An absolute UK disgrace what on earth is going on in this country? And especially with the COURT of Protection whom need serious overall investigations. We too are subjects of corrupt judgements by the court of protection having had to flea the UK into exile without any resolution in sight and yet they continue their unlawful acts on international citizens as well. WHO do they think they are?? www.opg.me

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.