A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP
The high-handed power of social workers and the courts, working in tandem, threatens even the privileges of Parliament, writes Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 16 Apr 201148 Comments
Last week a heavily pregnant woman, whose name is known to millions but whom I am forbidden by law to identify, was summoned to the High Court at very short notice to show why she should not be imprisoned. The charges against her, brought by a local authority I cannot name, were that she might or might not have been in breach of a court order restraining her freedom to speak about a matter which, again, I am prohibited from identifying.
One of these charges was that she attended a meeting, held last month in Westminster Hall, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on family protection issues, at the invitation of John Hemming MP. He has been campaigning for greater justice and transparency in our highly secretive family protection system, on behalf of families torn apart by social workers for what appear to be no good reasons.
The main speaker at the meeting, the theme of which was transparency in the family courts, was Anthony Douglas, the chief executive of Cafcass (Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service), the state body which purports to represent the interests of children. When the woman raised concerns over the conduct of her case – which, as she understood it, was the meeting’s purpose – it was reported back to the council concerned. This contribution was listed among her alleged breaches of a court order which dictates that she must say nothing about her case to anyone outside the system.
In open court last week, it was stated that the local authority had agreed not to demand her imprisonment, providing that she also obeyed new conditions that forbid her to speak about her case to the media or to any “other persons as the parties may think fit”.
In addition, as I learned from John Hemming, a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament. By ancient parliamentary privilege, MPs are entitled to raise in Parliament cases where they believe that the conduct of authorities or the courts has been so questionable that normal rules of secrecy should not protect them from public disclosure. Mr Hemming replied to the lawyers that they were “clearly seeking to influence what I say in Parliament. The case already has aspects which are in contempt of Parliament” and their letter added a further element which “I am inclined to ask should be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee”.
RELATED ARTICLES
- US still fails to keep its word as further massacre looms at Ashraf
16 Apr 2011
- The family justice system is callous, corrupt and staggeringly expensive
02 Apr 2011
- Another ‘horrible’ case for you, Mr Loughton
19 Mar 2011
- John Bercow fails to back rights of voters banned from talking to their MPs
26 Mar 2011
- Cameron can’t cut the EU red tape that will cost Calor millions
16 Apr 2011
It is difficult to believe, he continued, “when a mother has been threatened with imprisonment for talking to me, that an agreement come to in a court is come to willingly by all parties. It strikes me as an agreement arising as a result of duress.” Mr Hemming went on to say that, before referring to the Speaker a letter which he saw as being “in contravention of the law of Parliament”, he wished the lawyers to explain why he should “feel comfortable that this is something your client should have agreed to without having been threatened with imprisonment and/or the removal of her child at birth”.
He emphasised that he had no intention of disclosing any “information relating to the care proceedings which could be linked to your client or the child”. But from long experience of such cases, he saw the letter “as an attempt by the system to bully your client in an attempt to influence proceedings in Parliament”. He concluded that he would be entitled to “debate the constitutional issues raised simply by naming your client and raising the issues of her treatment by the police and the authorities’ attempts to punish her for her comments to the All-Party Parliamentary Group” .
The mention of the police referred, inter alia, to a recent episode where the mother, who is seven months pregnant, was arrested and held on and off in police cells over a period of 60 hours. Three times she was rushed to hospital in serious distress due to complications in her pregnancy. She was then dragged from her hospital bed after midnight to spend several more hours in a dirty cell, before finally being released.
As Mr Hemming sums the situation up: “There are many very disturbing aspects of this case, about which I cannot yet say as much as I would like. But it appears to be a very extreme example of the lengths to which the family protection system will go to hide its activities from responsible scrutiny by Parliament and the media.”
2 people
5 people
If not can I suggest that whomever is representing Ms Haigh do so at once?
On the face of the complaint made Ms Haigh appears to have been the victim of perjury, harassment, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. As well as police misconduct, and incompetence/dishonesty of social workers.
BTW: it is a criminal offence for someone to claim to be a solicitor when they are not.
5 people
1 person
17 people
Their behaviour has been building up to this for over 20 years.
Their need to have absolute control over others suggest the people who enter these professions have some sort of psychological disorders and quite frankly it is they who should be locked up.
They do it, because they can get away with it. Politicians have sat on the fence for a good 10 years, time for this appalling institutional abuse to be stopped.
I hope John Hemming MP names them (not his constituent) and discloses their behaviour in Parliament. Then it is captured in Hansard. What are they going to do try and get him arrested for doing his job?
9 people
19 people
14 people
3 people
2 people
2a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament.”
Brilliant genius well no, an abuse of his position.
9 people
17 people
12 people
You really are an idiot, aren’t you? I elect my MP to look after my interests and that is precisely what Hemmings was doing – what he was elected for.
Go and read the link IJ left earlier and tell me that the events and shady doings by the police in that are acceptable practice.
If our MPs are going to be gagged, and that includes the Family Courts, then that is the rest of our democracy out of the window. People like you need to be held accountable.
9 people
5 people
3 people
4 people
12 people
Could such a person be the one being persecuted by the “SS” ? Well if it’s not her she can sue me,but I reckon the police did not know who they were mistreating when they dragged her out of her hospital bed after midnight so they could sling this 7 month pregnant lady into a dirty uncomfortable cell” !Maybe they were hoping to provoke a premature birth so that the “SS” could confiscate her baby?
12 people
Nevertheless…if the story is accurate, there has to be a high-level inquiry into the way the police, the courts and the social care heirarchy are subverting the role of democracy.
16 people
19 people
20 people
I see no reason why any person, be they solicitor, barrister or Judge, who is involved in attempts to restrict the right of citizens to have access to their MP ought not be imprisoned in the Tower of the House of Commons for contempt of Parliament, without limit of time.
If that were to happen, and Her Majesty had no judges left, we might find a solution to this problem.
23 people
7 people
I was sent this link anonymously and I wonder if it refers to the events in Christopher’s column…….
10 people
It is well known that Doncaster isn’t a place to bring up children, the SS mafia there are renowned for their cruelty and incompetence.
3 people
16 people
What should happen is that he summons the judge and any other party to the Bar of the House, and reminds them that it is the duty of an MP to make representations to the Executive on behalf of their constituent, and anyone who interferes with this process is in contempt of Parliament.
Of course the Speaker will do no such thing, so Mr Hemming should not then feel bound by any lesser convention. He should speak out and name names. The public interest must prevail.
3 people
3 people
23 people
5 people
5 people
2 people
5 people
3 people
Just try a trick like that with a black or Pakistani mother and see where it gets you, especially if they are in the country illegally or an “Asylum Seeker”.
[...] Was this the case? (via @loveandgarbage): Last week a heavily pregnant woman, whose name is known to millions but whom I am forbidden by law to identify, was summoned to the High Court at very short notice to show why she should not be imprisoned. The charges against her, brought by a local authority I cannot name, were that she might or might not have been in breach of a court order restraining her freedom to speak about a matter which, again, I am prohibited from identifying. [...]
Pingback by Was this the super-injunction John Hemming wanted to break? | Liberal Conspiracy — April 26, 2011 @ 4:48 pm |