Lord Justice Wall criticises Lib Dem MP over "abuse of position"
Lord Justice Wall has published a strongly worded judgment damning the conduct of a Liberal Democrat MP who was acting as a McKenzie Friend in the Court of Appeal.
The judgment arose from an appeal against a placement order during the course of which the MP in question, John Hemming, made allegations that that solicitor's files had been tampered with and that the expert psychologist instructed had been biased to towards the local authority.
In the judgment Wall LJ recalls an exchange with Mr Hemming in which he made the allegations that the file had been changed and says that the "feeling of incredulity" he experienced at the time of the hearing was "not diminished" by the time he came to make the judgment. He goes on to say,
"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."
He also refers to comments about the proceedings on the MP's website that refer to the "evil" of the arrangements for appointing expert witnesses,
"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 allegation) 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."
Finally, Wall LJ comments that Mr Hemming's standing in
"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."
The MP has responded to the criticism on his blog by stressing what he thinks was the key point which was that
"the mother had never been given an opportunity to put her side of the argument ......This is a far more important issue than whether or not my contested assertions are true or not".
The full text of the judgment
John Hemming's full response on his blog