John Hemming MP wrote an extraordinary article in the Huffington Post last week, defending his actions in the Vicky Haigh case.
First I want to address one of the legal points he raises in the piece. This one’s on American constitutional law. He says:
In the USA it would be clearly unconstitutional to apply to jail someone for complaining at a meeting in Congress. This falls within the terms of Amendment One to the US Constitution.
It’s common among those who oppose injunctions issued by UK courts in privacy and family cases to cite the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and to suggest that what they’re complaining about in England could never happen in the States. The argument can be overdone, though. This case shows us that American judges can be just as fierce as their English counterparts in clamping down on self-serving publicity by parents in family cases involving children.
While admittedly Eugene Volokh thinks the ruling a breach of the First Amendment, I wonder whether he’d take the same view if the facts were like Vicky Haigh’s case – that is, if the order prevented the mother from discussing the details of her child’s case in public, in circumstances where she’s been found to have made, and coached her child in, false sexual abuse allegations against its father, and in which those same false and defamatory accusations, naming the father, are being peddled round the internet. I’d welcome the view of any US constitutional lawyer about whether or not that would be constitutionally protected speech.
Nor do I think it’s obvious the “speech or debate clause” in the US constitution would have protected Vicky Haigh if the meeting had been on Capitol Hill, any more than Parliamentary privilege protected her here because she happened to speak on the Parliamentary estate. Not being a legislator, she obviously wasn’t acting as one when she spoke at John Hemming’s meeting.
Discussion of constitutional rights in Britain – such as freedom of speech – would be better if it were free of mythologising about other constitutional frameworks. John Hemming is entitled to cite the US Constitution in his support – if he sets out a decent argument explaining why he’s justified in invoking it. An airy reference to the First Amendment, as though it simply means anyone can say anything in America, isn’t enough.
Coming back to England, Hemming says
I stand by my decision to identify Vicky Haigh as someone whose constitutional rights (Under Article 5 of the UK Bill of Rights 1688) were being threatened by Doncaster MDC.
This seems to me another unjustified invocation of constitutional rights, this time the right to petition the Queen under article 5 of the Bill of Rights:
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
This right can be exercised either by petitioning the Queen directly, or by addressing a petition to Parliament (of which the Queen is a constituent part, of course). The idea that speaking at John Hemming’s private meeting amounts to petitioning the Sovereign is absurd. By the way, the right to petition the Queen directly, while of limited interest to those concerned with real constitutional rights and duties, is of great concern to people like “freemen on the land” who claim they’re in “lawful rebellion” against the legal institutions of this country.
But back to earth, and John Hemming. He says
… in a small proportion of cases parents abuse their children. Furthermore at times in family court cases there are at times false allegations of abuse. Additionally at times the court decides that an allegation is false when in fact it is true ..
.. Hence if you have an allegation of abuse that is true, but the court has decided it is false then the court makes the wrong decision and potentially places the child with a parent who has maltreated the child ..
.. In Vicky Haigh’s case … the court decided she had made false allegations.
What strikes me as extraordinary here is the way Hemming’s references to a court deciding that an allegation is false when in fact it is true, to an allegation of abuse that is true, but the court has decided it is false and then finally to Vicky Haigh’s case in which the court decided she made false allegations can easily be read as implying he does not accept the court’s findings.
So much for John Hemming’s earlier suggestion that he’s been interested only in the free speech aspects of this case. It seems to me reasonable to infer from this Huffington Post piece that he believes there’s something in Vicky Haigh’s claims – in spite of judicial findings that they’re fabricated.
I’m happy to be corrected if in fact he accepts those findings.
[…] John Hemming’s Extraordinary Defence on Head of Legal. A must read. […]
To paraphrase judge Wall there was never “a scintilla of evidence” that Vick Haigh ever coached her child to accuse her father of abusing her.
The judge branded Vicky a criminal on the balance of probabilities (51%?) and it would ,considering the lack of evidence have been almost as bad if after viewing the police videos the judge had branded Petet Tune an abuser on probabilities (51%);No judge should conclude any parent has committed a criminal act unless it is beyond doubt,yet hundreds are so branded every year on the intuition of a single judge and this is just PLAIN WRONG !
As to Hemming naming Vicky in Parliament ,well he was only doing what in every other civilized country in the world Vicky would have been allowed to do herself .
It is barbaric to take a child from a mother and threaten her with jail if she protests publicly.
It is hypocritical to at the same time as proclaiming the need for children’s privacy allow the local authority to advertise children for adoption in the Daily Mirror and other periodicals with colour photos,first names,birth dates,and character descriptions for adopters to sift through and select like pedigree dogs !!
One law for distraught mothers and another for local authorities……..
I wonder if you have seen his further ‘defence’ on the mumsnet blog. Clearly John Hemmings has a great deal of time with which to respond to his critics.
I have only just seen this blog and it seems to escape the majority of people that the family courts are a haven for peodophile fathers to escape prosecution. Of course John Hemming knows the judge was wrong in my case as he has seen my daughter’s police interviews and has first hand knowledge and solid evidence of tampering and corruption to protect the [redacted – Carl*] father. The fact that he takes it no further is the bit that baffles an innocent mother like myself. So if I coached my child, then why have the Local Authority gone out of their way to exclude me entirely from my daughter’s life when child murderer mothers are allowed contact with their surviving children. If you google the Sheffield incest case you can see for yourself, how social workers, schools and the rest of the government agencies allow incest to happen and cover the poor child’s cries for help. Please whoever you are writing this blog, get with the whole child abuse thing in the UK. We do not call it Peodo Britain for nothing. Is coaching a child a criminal offence? No, which means that I never had a fair trial to decide if I did coach or not, just some judge in a secret court allowing a care order to be granted on a child that didn’t need one, to allow Doncaster council to cream yet more of the public purse on my daughter, not caring whether she is being sexually abused. If she is they can easily cover it up. I am not finished with this case yet and wouldn’t you think that if I went to all the trouble to expose the corruption, then like John Hemming, we might know the truth?
It is harder to expose the truth in the UK than flying to the moon without a rocket.
*I redacted part of the comment that was plainly defamatory – Carl