“You’ve just gone through an awful experience like that, and nobody wants to take your case on because you’ve been a convicted sex offender.
“I turned to my MP and he wanted to find out what had happened.
“But then social services left me with no illusions that if I spoke publicly about the case they would knock on the door and take our daughter away.
“I told them that they were gagging me. They replied that if I continued to talk to Mr Hemming, or the media, about the case then they would put in for immediate care proceedings and take the child off us.”
Mr France, from Sheldon, Birmingham, who runs a construction company, added: “It was only when I was a free man that they decided to say they would take the child off us. We did not know what to do for the best.
“The first time I heard about the order not to speak to Mr Hemming was in a letter from my wife’s solicitor in March 2010.
“They were going for what’s known as a fact-finding hearing, where they re-run your criminal trial in a lower court and make a finding on the balance of probabilities.
“I couldn’t believe it. The secrecy in this country is unbelievable.”
Mr France, 48, was released from prison in 2008 while he awaited the appeal hearing.
While the proceedings continued, social workers at Birmingham City Council allowed him access to his baby daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who was being cared for by his wife, Qi.
The businessman had been sentenced to seven years after being falsely accused of raping and sexually abusing a teenage boy.
In December 2009, Lord Justice Moses in the Court of Appeal described Mr France’s conviction as “unsafe” because there was “no rational explanation” why a critical piece of medical evidence was not presented to the jury by the defence team.
After his name had been cleared but when social services refused to allow him to move in with his family, Mr France spoke to a local newspaper about his dilemma.
The local authority then secured the gagging order from Judge Martin Cardinal at Birmingham County Court.
Its terms said that he had “agreed” to not speak to his MP – something Mr France says he only did because of the threat of losing his child, who still cannot be named for legal reasons.
The council eventually dropped its legal proceedings last summer and Mr France was able to finally return to his family.
Mr Hemming, who apart from being Mr France’s constituency MP also specialises in addressing miscarriages of justice in the family courts, said: “It is very clear that orders such as this undermine the inalienable right of citizens to talk to people in government.
“Members of Parliament are normally the last resort for people who have problems with the system failing. Courts which interfere with this right are behaving in an unconstitutional manner.
“Parliament used to stand up for people’s rights and it should stand up again.”
A string of celebrities, many of them prominent sporting stars, have obtained superinjunctions, which prevent the publication of details about their private lives including extra-marital affairs and the use of prostitutes.
Mr Hemming and other advocates of freedom of speech say the use of the orders represents a threat to democracy.
Mr Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to reveal that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had obtained a court order preventing the publication of information about him and even identifying that he was a banker.
Mark Newby, Mr France’s solicitor in the appeal case, said: “There is an increasing level of secrecy in the courts. This often means there are too many restrictions and too much is balanced against the defendant.”
A Birmingham City Council spokeswoman insisted that Mr France had agreed not to approach the MP and technically this was not a requirement of the injunction. However, if he had approached the MP he would have been in contempt of court.
“In March 2010, Andrew France agreed in court not to disclose any further details of the ongoing case to anyone. This was not a court order and it was not as a result of a request made by Birmingham City Council,” the spokeswoman said.
“At the conclusion of the proceedings, the judge made it very clear that Mr France was free to discuss the case as he wished, on the basis that the identity of any children were not divulged.
“The welfare of children involved in care proceedings is always the first priority of the city council but the authority does not comment on the specifics of any such case.”
A Judicial Communications Office spokeswoman said: “There is nothing novel about this form of injunction.
“In cases where injunctive relief is granted so as to prohibit the subject of the injunction from disseminating the information to anyone, the subject of the injunction is only able to discuss the order and the proceedings with their lawyer.
“Ordinarily then any injunction granted would prohibit its subject from discussing the case with anyone, including the media, their family and MPs.”
Judge Cardinal, who issued the order, is 58, was called to the Bar in 1977 and served as a district judge from 1994. He took his current role as a circuit judge in 2004.
He is also a lay reader and chancellor of the Diocese of Birmingham.