John Hemming MP and all-round arsehole
/All round shitbag and Lib-Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley, John Hemming, gets thoroughy defenestrated by judge.
The whole judgement is rather technical and fairly meaningless unless you know the details of the case in question but within the judgement are these excoriating comments about the disgraceful behaviour of John Hemming MP, who was acting as a 'McKenzie friend' to the litigant and made serious allegations during the hearing. Hemming is a persistent critic of social workers, local authority child protection departments, family courts, doctors and anyone else whose opinions he dislikes. He's a nasty, dangerous idiot.
As I said, John Hemming is a nasty, dangerous idiot.
The whole judgement is rather technical and fairly meaningless unless you know the details of the case in question but within the judgement are these excoriating comments about the disgraceful behaviour of John Hemming MP, who was acting as a 'McKenzie friend' to the litigant and made serious allegations during the hearing. Hemming is a persistent critic of social workers, local authority child protection departments, family courts, doctors and anyone else whose opinions he dislikes. He's a nasty, dangerous idiot.
Lord Justice Wall:
My second purpose, however, is to record Mr. Hemming's quite extraordinary reaction to SC's file. After Mr. Peter Jackson QC had taken us through the references to SC's discussions with RP about the role of the Official Solicitor (perhaps not, in fairness to Mr. Jackson, in quite the same degree of detail as I have done) we invited Mr. Hemming to reply on RP's behalf. I confess that, no doubt with considerable naivety, I had expected a recognition on his part that, whatever RP's perspective of the Official Solicitor and his role, the record made by SC would be respected, and that Mr. Hemming would acknowledge that, to some extent at least, RP's recollection had plainly failed her.
Not a bit of it. So astonished was I by Mr. Hemming's response that I asked the transcribers to make me a CD Rom of the exchanges which occurred, so that my note of them could be supplemented by the record. In a nutshell, Mr. Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in SC's file had been made up: in a word, fabricated.
Mr Hemming seized immediately on the discrepancy in the dates which I have identified in paragraph 64 above, and sought to argue from it that "there is some doubt as to some of the provenance of some of the documents in these files." I intervened to say: "I believe in calling a spade a spade. Do you think this is a put up job?" Mr Hemming replied: "I think this is a put up job and I have some experience in looking for evidence".
I then put to Mr. Hemming that he was suggesting that the solicitor had deliberately falsified the file. Mr. Hemming demurred, stating that somebody had put the file note (which I have set out at paragraph 63 above) "and some other associated documents in retrospect – that is what I am alleging". Mr. Jackson then intervened to enquire if Mr. Hemming was alleging that the letter dated 11 December 2006 from the Official Solicitor to RP, which I have set out at paragraph 60 above was not sent to her. Mr. Hemming replied: "I would think that is the case. Normal practice is to stamp everything that is received in an office". The following exchange then occurred between Mr. Hemming and myself: -
Lord Justice Wall
Mr Hemming you are making very, very serious allegations.
Mr Hemming
I accept that.
Lord Justice Wall
We have got to consider them. You do appreciate your position. We have got to consider the allegations you are making and weigh them in the scales. You are making very serious allegations indeed about the professional integrity and competence of solicitors and the Official Solicitor, and I think you really need to think very carefully about it before you go on.
Mr Hemming
Well, I have made the allegation. It does need consideration. It is strange to me that the file notes throughout the rest of the file are in completely different format, and a solicitor who normally sends a copy letter out with letters received, merely as a file note saying a with compliment slip was sent out. I find that very strange. But that is enough said on that point and I would ask you to consider. I would like to move on if that is acceptable.
Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have, of course, carefully considered Mr Hemming's interventions in this part of the case, and I have re-read the files. Having done so, the feeling of incredulity which I experienced on 4 March has not diminished.
In my judgment, SC's files demonstrate overwhelmingly four clear facts. They are; (1) that RP was fully aware that SC had doubts about her ability to provide instructions; (2) that RP was fully aware that the Official Solicitor was being approached to act on her behalf; (3) that she was fully aware that the Official Solicitor had been appointed, and was representing her; and (4) that she was fully aware of his role in the proceedings. In short, RP's assertion that she did not know the Official Solicitor was acting for her is manifestly unsustainable.
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.
It is plain to me from these documents, that in addition to the allegations set out above, Mr. Hemming believes that HJ was in the pay of the local authority and thus was "the local authority's expert". For good measure, he asserts that the system is "evil" and that "there does seem to be little concern in the legal profession about the reliability of opinion offered in court.". The clear implication behind the "witch findings" items on the website set out at paragraph 95 above is that "experts" like HJ are in it for the money; that they are happy to "manufacture 'evidence'"; and that they are in receipt of "phoney" letters of instruction. The result, Mr Hemming asserts is a "disaster".
In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed; the simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position.
The only postscript I would wish to add to my substantive judgment on this point is that at the heart of this case, as with so many family cases, lies a human tragedy: the premature and unconsidered birth of a disabled child, and a mother who is plainly incapable of caring for her, however much she may want to. However, the danger of the mother's approach, reinforced as it has been, in my judgment, by Mr Hemming's partial and tendentious advice, is that it has been entirely adult focused. Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP. His emphasis, and that of RP was entirely on her rights and the alleged wrongs which had been done to her.
As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.
Even more unarguable – indeed it is outrageous - is Mr Hemming's allegation that HJ was the paid expert of the local authority. She was nothing of the kind. Such an allegation is not only without any evidential foundation of any kind: it is plainly contradicted by the evidence.
Mr. Hemming's allegation that HJ is part of an "evil" system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming's position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.
As I said, John Hemming is a nasty, dangerous idiot.
