This is an absolutely remarkable assessment of John Hemming by the Appeal Court judge in this case:
- Mr. Hemming’s response on RP’s behalf is that this cannot be so because the file has been interfered with. I have, of course, considered that response with care. It is a profoundly serious allegation. However, it is one for which, in my judgment, there is absolutely no evidence. The only query is the mistaken date on the typed attendance note. I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them. Hat tip The Stirrer.
7 comments ↓
Hmm. That does remind me of something, let me think what it was now …. got it! It was what Commissioner Mawrey said about John Hemming in 2005: “he was a dreadful witness. His evidence was largely inadmissible hearsay. He possesses an inability to give a straight answer to a straight question which would be the envy of a national politician appearing on the Today programme.” (para 706)
Leave the guy alone. He’s probably the one person in all of England with enough balls to stand up for what’s right.
Labour like to quote part of the statement by Mawrey.
The whole quote is:
706. I feel Mr Hemming deserves a mention. True, he was a dreadful witness. His evidence was largely inadmissible hearsay. He possesses an inability to give a straight answer to a straight question which would be the envy of a national politician appearing on the Today programme.
707. But, when all that is said and done, Mr Hemming was right and his critics were wrong. He said that there was massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party and there was in fact massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party. He may have played the part of Cassandra but, like Cassandra, his prophesies were true. He emerges from the case with credit which is more than can be said for those police officers who treated his complaints as no more than Operation Gripe
Apologies John, I hadn’t checked the source of David’s comments. Had I done so I would have made the point on your behalf.
Can you address the central thrust of the comments by a judge in this current case though – that you were irresponsible and abused your position?
I have dealt with the judges point in more detail on my blog. One was an allegation that the file showed signs of being tampered with by someone. I have seen other files tampered with. If the judge concludes that he doesn’t agree with me that’s up to him. There is no certainty either way. Because they initially refused to give the mother her files and I only saw them on the day of the hearing it raises concerns. If you want more on this see my blog.
The second area related to the fact that the local authority was under pressure to increase adoptions. I provided the evidence from the DCSF budgets. This is a point that will be put to the House of Lords. (see my blog for the legal arguments)
In neither instance was I using my position as an MP. I could have done all this whether or not I was an MP and I so incensed at what is being done to people that it is something I would do were I to cease being a party politician.
To that extent I cannot be abusing my position because I wasn’t using it.
To be fair to the judges I have been very critical of the procedures in the Family Division – for which they are responsible – and I am not surprised that they are upset.
It remains, however, that the mother has had her baby removed because it is alleged that she cannot give it an inhaler 6 times a day with two separate drugs something she contests. She has, however, not had a trial at which she could contest these allegations.
Do you think that MPs should make unfounded allegations in a court though? You had no evidence that the file was tampered with. I can’t understand why you would say that it was if you had no evidence at all to back up the claim. At best it seems unwise.
The file was adjusted retrospectively. That is accepted in the judgment. The argument put forward was that it was done by typing up handwritten notes. I would ask the question why?
There were three specific items of evidence pointing towards the file being tampered with
a) The file note being the wrong format
b) The letter not having a stamp and also being in an odd format.
c) The date of the file note being the wrong date
Additionally it was odd that this was the only letter sent out with a compliments slip rather than an associated letter.
However, it was not the key issue of substance. It is a reasonable inference to draw.
Leave a Comment