On Thursday afternoon, in a back room of Parliament, history was made.  A few MPs found themselves a backbone; they found a way in which they could exercise their Freedom of Speech and perform their ancient duty, drawn from the Bill of Rights 1688, of redressing the grievances of the citizens who rely on them.

They were warned first to ‘be careful’:

I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion into areas that are within the jurisdiction of the courts, particularly things that are active before the courts.

The speaker, Mr Peter Bone, issued that warning because he knew what was coming; he understood the careful dance that must be performed before him.

Every single MP knows what has been going on; the Speaker of the House knows what has been going on; David Cameron knows what has been going on; to my personal knowledge, every single media outlet has known what has been going on; none of them were prepared to risk the wrath of the establishment by letting you know what has been going on. Do please Google and see if you can find one single reference in the media yesterday or today to the astounding events detailed in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoon.

Mr John Hemming, MP for Yardley in Birmingham, rose to his feet and used parliamentary privilege to list some of the secret prisoners, the people who have lost their liberty in the UK behind closed doors; the court orders which detail the secret injunctions – not for the benefit of footballers or bankers, (although it was the issue of Fred Goodwin’s secret injunction that allowed the debate to be heard), but the injunctions, not mere ‘super-injunctions’ that the media could not mention, but ‘hyper-injunctions’ which even prevented the aggrieved citizen from appealing to their MP for help.

Because we are allowed to speak of that which has been in Hansard, we can today speak of the misery of those whose lives have been turned upside down, in secret, with the added bonus of a special injunction from the judge which prevented them even turning to their MP.

‘Secret Courts’, ‘Secret Prisoners’, Article 9 of the Act of Rights 1689:

“the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Overruled by our courts? Can it be true? Yes it can! Right here, right now, under your noses. Not in some far flung ‘failed state’, not out in the desert, but here, in Britain, in the Mother of all Parliaments – and every MP and every media outlet knew it.

I urge you, if you do nothing else today, to read the full transcript of that back bench committee meeting yesterday. It is long and complex. You may find it boring in parts.

I have several hundred e-mails, some from the very people John Hemming mentioned. I have said as much as I could without putting my entire world at risk. I have sent them on to every media outlet I could. Silence.

It has taken the hatred of bankers and Fred Goodwin’s obscene pension to even obtain this debate. It took the bravery of John Hemming to remember why he was sent to parliament by his constituents to speak out.

He spoke of the threats to constituents if they spoke to their MP:

To say, “We will remove your child, because you had the effrontery to raise your concerns about process with your Member of Parliament” is a dreadful thing to do. Parliament should not tolerate that, because it undermines the actions of Parliament.

He spoke of the self censorship of the media:

One of the freedom of speech issues is that media organisations are generally commercial organisations, and there gets to be a point at which it is not worth their while trying to challenge the system and to get information out. With that, we return to the article 9 issue, because our freedom of speech in the House is obviously on behalf of the citizens. We need to know of grievances so that we can raise them and talk about them publicly, so that the citizens of the UK can know. If it costs £20,000 or £30,000 in legal fees to write an article, in most circumstances a media organisation will just give up. The freedom of speech is basically sold down the river, because of the costs of the legal processes.

He spoke of the vested interests of the legal system:

One of the problems with how things have developed, and with all the secrecy rules, is that they seem to act to protect not vulnerable people but those who make money out of the system.

He spoke of the Hyper-injunctions in particular – in respect of a man wrongly imprisoned on an allegation of rape:

“upon the first and second Respondents agreeing that they will make no further disclosure in respect of this matter to any third party, including in particular the media and John Hemmings MP.”

Mr Bacon: For the benefit of the House, can my hon. Friend clarify, in case anyone did not notice? Is he saying that a court order was made prohibiting a constituent from talking to him as a Member of Parliament?

Yes, he was!

The essence of it is that he has no real choice. If he does not agree to it, the local council, of which I used to be deputy leader, would take action to take his child into care.

A man wrongly accused of rape, was not to discuss the matter with his MP, or the ‘authorities would take his child away from him’? Can this really be Britain today?

He spoke of secret prisoners:

In the case I am talking about, a large sum of money has been spent on keeping this particular girl in the custody of the state – she is effectively a secret prisoner.

He spoke of a commercial case, still sub-judice, which did not involve either children or vulnerable people:

When one thinks of secret courts, one thinks of unsavoury regimes such as those in Burma, Cuba, Hungary in the 1950s or Stalin’s Russia, but one does not think of the United Kingdom. How can a judge feel it appropriate to make an order making it unlawful – supposedly – to refer to the existence of proceedings?

John Hemming: The person in question could actually be jailed for telling his MP that he had been in court case No. 773. What is so sensitive about that? In practice, even family court proceedings are not that confidential. I think this case was in the Commercial and Admiralty court. My first question is not just how the hell this could happen – I apologise for the non-parliamentary language, Mr Bone. How does this happen? How many more of these cases are there? How many secret cases do we have in this country, with people being banned from even saying that the case exists?

All this tumbled out and more – just 24 hours after Lord Neuberger, the current Master of the Rolls, addressed the Judicial Studies Board thus:

“We live in a country which is committed to the rule of law. Central to that commitment is that justice is done in public – that what goes on in court and what the courts decide is open to scrutiny. This is not a new fundamental principle”.

Do we?

If you are chatting on Twitter today, please pass on the link to John Hemming’s speech in Westminster Hall; it truly is more important than anything else you were planning to say. The media are still running scared of this matter, ‘commercial interests’ as John Hemming’s said.

It is up to the Blogosphere to make sure that Hemming’s voice is not a lone forgotten whisper in a dark corner.

He’s given you the baton – now run with it. Run for your life.

Work
Programme April 26, 2011 at 16:43

So, can anyone tell me what makes hyper-injunctions legal?

What gives the courts the power to grant them? What penalties are for
refusal to do so? How is the process of a guilty person infringing the
hyper-injunction going to receive such penalty? Does the CPS get involved (who
must act “in the public interest”) or is it via the backdoor?

My only understanding is, these are an extension of normal injunctions
where lawyer claim Articles out of the ECHR… which is part of the blocks of
European Law which is supreme to our Acts and Statutory Instruments – and
common law. So they can grant them, however, what would enforce them to the
extent of prosecuting a person for infringing one? It really cannot be an
automatic life sentence and instant imprisonment as they are trying to make
out.

In effect, our courts only have to mildly upheld the wider European law
(with MPs putting EU directives and treaties etc. into statute) and should
focus on our law with anyone able to take the state to the ECHR if they feel
their rights have been violated (just like us poor people have to do regards
to stop and search powers, kettling etc.) but of course where there is money
there is corruption. Parliamentary Privilege is supreme to these injunctions,
however, Parliament isn’t Supreme to European Law. Basically it takes an MP
will balls to ignore the warnings… they might end up in jail for 2 weeks, but
can’t see it being such a major thing.

As for the Government… why all this talk of super and hyper injunctions,
the former from many years ago… to present day?! They could fast track an Act
through to sort this out within a month – probably take half a week tops to
draft it. Of course, the MPs are largely rich, and do not care about
constituents being banned from talking to them (makes their jobs easier)
although if the injunctions were directly to hush them it would be
outrage!

Alan Parker April 8, 2011 at 00:06

Just learned about the existence of these oppressive Hyper-injunctions from
Channel 4′s 10 o’clock show so at least the mainstream media are allerting the
public to how some Britain’s have little more rights than prisoners in WWII
internment camps(btw a little trivia for you: i’m writing this on my phone and
predictive text puts internment and government under the same number
combination) but anyway i don’t completely understand the judicial system but
this purely seems like politicians covering their own arses when sensitive
issues arise.

Greg Tingey March 23, 2011 at 08:47

It is indeed, an “Old Issue.”
The emphasis on Magna Carta, is, in my
opinion, a mistake.
The Bill of Rights, 1689-90 is much more important an
relevant.

Aplogies for the loing following quote, it’s title is, indeed: “The Old
Issue”

“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets
“Many feet
have worn it and the road is old indeed,
“It is the King–the King we
schooled aforetime!”
(Trumpets in the marshes–in the eyot at
Runnymede!)

“Here is neither haste, nor hate, nor anger,” peal the Trumpets,
“Pardon
for his penitence or pity for his fall,

“It is the King!”–inexorable Trumpets–
(Trumpets round the scaffold at
the dawning by Whitehall!)

“He hath veiled the Crown and hid the Sceptre,” warn the Trumpets,
“He
hath changed the fashion of the lies that cloak his will.
“Hard die the
Kings–ah, hard–dooms hard!” declare the Trumpets,
(Trumpets at the
gang-plank where the brawling troop-decks fill!)

Ancient and Unteachable, abide–abide the Trumpets!
Once again the
Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
Clamour over ocean of the
harsh, pursuing Trumpets–
Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce
with Kings!

All we have of freedom, all we use or know–
This our fathers bought for
us long and long ago.

Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw–
Leave to live by no man’s
leave, underneath the Law–

Lance and torch and tumult, steel and grey-goose wing,
Wrenched it, inch
and ell and all, slowly from the King.

Till our fathers ‘stablished, after bloody years,
How our King is one
with us, first among his peers.

So they bought us freedom–not at little cost–
Wherefore must we watch
the King, lest our gain be lost.

Over all things certain, this is sure indeed,
Suffer not the old King:
for we know the breed.

Give no ear to bondsmen bidding us endure,
Whining “He is weak and far;”
crying “Time shall cure.”

(Time himself is witness, till the battle joins,
Deeper strikes the
rottenness in the people’s loins.)

Give no heed to bondsmen masking war with peace,
Suffer not the old King
here or overseas.

They that beg us barter–wait his yielding mood–
Pledge the years we hold
in trust–pawn our brother’s blood–

Howso’ great their clamour, whatso’er their claim,
Suffer not the old
King under any name!

He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
Set his guards about
us, as in Freedom’s name.

Here is naught unproven–here is naught to learn,
It is written what
shall fall if the King return.

He shall take a tribute; toll of all our ware;
He shall change our gold
for arms–arms we may not bear.

He shall break his Judges if they cross his word;
He shall rule above
the Law calling on the Lord.

He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
Watchers ‘neath our
windows, lest we mock the King–

Hate and all divisions; hosts of hurrying spies;
Money poured in secret;
carrion breeding flies.

Strangers of his counsel, hirelings of his pay,
These shall deal our
Justice: sell–deny–delay.

We shall drink dishonour, we shall eat abuse,
For the Land we look
to–for the Tongue we use.

We shall take our station, dirt beneath his feet,
while his hired
captains jeer us in the street.

Cruel in the shadow, crafty in the sun,
Far beyond his borders shall his
teachings run.

Sloven, sullen, savage, secret, uncontrolled,
Laying on a new land evil
of the old–

Long-forgotten bondage, dwarfing heart and brain–
All our fathers died
to loose he shall bind again.

Here is naught at venture, random or untrue–
Swings the wheel
full-circle, brims the cup anew.

Here is naught unproven, here is nothing hid:
Step for step and word for
word–so the old Kings did!

Step by step and word by word: who is ruled may read.
Suffer not the old
Kings: for we know the breed–

All the right they promise–all the wrong they bring.
Stewards of the
Judgment, suffer not this King!

Norman
Stanley Fletcher March 23, 2011 at
04:49

OK I know I’m very late to the party however this is chilling. kudos both
to you and your blog and to John Hemming for getting this stuff out in the
public domain. I salute you both!!! I have now blogged about this http://landoffhopeandglory.blogspot.com/ (for what its worth
given my tiny readership) but I’ve emailed over twenty people so far with a
link to this thread.

anon March 22, 2011 at 23:03

It is my understanding that the Magna Carta is a treaty.

There are some very interesting comments being posted on this article in
The Telegraph relating to secret family courts , although not a fan of John
Hemming it is nice to see him step up to the plate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8392887/Another-horrible-case-for-you-Mr-Loughton.html

Morri March 22, 2011 at 19:35

Anna, have posted this on my own message board, a beeb (!) message board I
use and on facebook as well. I’ll see if I can find a few more places to put
it up too.

Good for you in bringing it to our attention, and I’m glad you’re still
blogging. I don’t think I’ve commented before, but I pop over and have a
browse whenever I can

dickiebo March 22,
2011 at 13:02

I have posted this as a ‘Guest Post’ to pass-on the word.

Big Fat Trucker
March 22, 2011 at 11:00

Tim Dowling’s reported on it in the Graun: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/21/secrets-to-keep-hyper-injunction.

Late but welcome.

Doug Proctor
March 22, 2011 at 04:37

Our democratic “freedoms” are general and not specific. Not just in the UK,
but in the US and Canada and, probably, all other freedom-styled countries.
The US gets away with the Gauntanamo prisons despite clear Supreme Court
instructions and a President who was voted in, in part, to shut them down.
Canada allows, nay contributes, to its own citizens being sent out-of-country
to be tortured as part of an international hunt for real and perceived
terrorists.

In general we are free. Specifically, when the State decides otherwise, we
are not. This is a surprise to those brought up to believe that the governing
do so for the general betterment of the governed, not just for their own
interests. A surprise to those brought up to believe that the governors know
more, are wiser, have a greater picture than we, the governed. A surprise to
those who were brought up to believe that the Big Lie is only a Stalinist or
Nazi tactic. The 21st century and the War on Iraq taught us differently.

If we are to gain, not regain, what we never had, items such as this must
be in the interest of the mainstream media to discuss. But, can it be? Or is
the mainstream media too much a part of the governing structure to be part of
what is very much a challenge to the power of the State and the State’s
ability to wiggle out of problems? Blair already admitted that bringing in the
FOIA was the worst move of his career, an unintended limitation on “good
governing”.

The judiciary, the State, the MSM are structures or corporations that don’t
care one way or another; it is the people running them or living through them
that care. Silencing one man or many is irrelevant to a buraucracy, as it will
survive one way or another. But to the man or woman in the control room, such
things matter greatly.

All rules, regulations and restrictions do not exist to serve or limit
groups, but to serve or limit specific individuals. It is only when many
individuals come to be distressed that the group or community is affected.
When silence is imposed on an individual, all individuals are potentially
affected, but in practice in our “democratic” societies this is a moot point.

The internet is a revolution for freedom, but it is a force for anarchy as
well. How we evolve is very much open right now. The internet allows us to
know about things the State and corporations and even the strange neighbour
next door doesn’t want us to know about. There is no reason to expect there
will not be a formal push-back on this freedom to know, probably using the
canard of “right to privacy”. I hope the knowledge that the UK government has
a right to keep you ignorant and silent without recourse becomes a public
issue. Brits aren’t the only ones who are in this position. We all are, and it
is past time that we learn that.

Chris Close March 22, 2011 at 02:05

please go viral

Chris Close March 22, 2011 at 02:04

I have fought this case for 6 years.

I have been able to do diggley squat because of this offensive order which
has destroyed a man’s life. Davis & cO – hempel v Bradford

Jerry Lonsdale
March 22, 2011 at 01:56

Just to iron out a bit of the above slight confusion, John mentioned and
used the Bill of Rights 1689, The Magna Carta is in its original form from
1215

Jerry Lonsdale
March 22, 2011 at 01:48

I have been working with John for nearly 5 years now and almost two years
ago he raised my case with 12 candidates for the speakers position back in
2009, all were supportive of John to have the Parliamentary Standards
Committee look into my case after my own Local authority threatend me with
Jail twice if I spoke to John or My own MP about my case, Michael Martin the
then speaker had blocked an earlier motion by John, the twelve MP’s including
Bercow and Sir George Young were all in Favour for John to refer the matter,
well when the time came and Bercow was elected to Speaker well low and behold
my issues were swept under the carpet, despite many attempts by John Hemming
to force the issue, I am so pleased that John Who Chaired the issues on
Wednesday the 16th finally achived something many MP’s Have all too well
forgot about, yep it may have took John two years but he got there, hats off
and a Salute from me Mr Hemming.

Dyspeptic
Curmudgeon March 21, 2011 at 22:12

Re: Dick the Prick March 19, 2011 at 12:03
‘”You are correct when you
suggest that I take the view that I am not accountable to you as an MP for the
way in which I act in individual cases.”

“I find it difficult to express with appropriate moderation my disagreement
with the proposition of Sedley LJ…..” Hoffman, L.J in Tomlinson v Congleton
Borough 2003 UKHL 46 at p47.

Every once in a while, I ponder whether ‘Self Defence’ might not be proper
defence to a charge of Murder. And the jury in William Penn’s case *was*
dispensing Justice.

Edward March 21, 2011 at 22:03

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but:

Would it be possible to publicise super-injunctions on a US-based blog,
written by somebody also based in the US, where the First Amendment would
provide protection? If it were a US citizen doing the publicising, I can’t
imagine the Yanks would extradite him or her.

Just a thought.

Mike
Cunningham March 21, 2011 at 15:36

Anna,

Blogged as linked. Letter to own MP on stocks. These buggers must be
brought to heel!

Big Fat Trucker
March 21, 2011 at 15:31

I’m about halfway through reading the Hansard excerpt; Jesus H. Christ on
fucking pogo stick.

I’m doing law as a mature student. Eventually I hope to qualify, and up to
40 minutes ago I had in mind just making a living. Not any more. These C*NTS
need taking down a peg or two, especially the thieving swine in the Official
Solictor’s office.

muymalestado
March 21, 2011 at 12:23

@Norman Scarth – except, to be pernickity, the Fifth Column was in place in
Britain well before the start of WWII, like several centuries, possibly
millennia before. They were and are our ruling class, and they are no longer
just British, they are global.

One attraction of Britain is that unlike in despotic states erosion of our
‘Rights’ takes a modicum of effort of pushing through Parliament or the
courts. And possibly someone notices the injunction elevating from secret to
super to hyper.

What we need to know is what we can do about it when the media revert to
type (lickspittles of that ruling class).

John K March 21, 2011 at 11:30

Telegraph has now picked this up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8394566/Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html

SadButMadLad
March 21, 2011 at 12:18

And in the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368395/Now-hyper-injunction-gagging-order-stops-constituent-speaking-MP.html

Anna
Raccoon March 21, 2011 at 12:20

And so the sleeping giants slowly rise to the occasion……better late
than never.

Norman
Scarth March 21, 2011 at 09:37

Congratulations to John Hemming, & to Anna! The European part of World
War 2 did not end with the defeat of Hitler (who was at least honest). A Fifth
Column was waiting in the wings. They did not need to invade, as they were
already here. They are Quislings (big & little), & have achieved by
stealth that which Hitler failed to achieve by force. They have twisted the
language & taken every position of power in Britain – Government,
Parliament, Courts, Councils etc. ‘Better a bad system run by good people than
a good system run by bad people’. We have a bad system run by VERY bad people.
‘Bad law is the worst form of tyranny’ (Edmund Burke). It is our DUTY to
disobey bad laws.

Jeremy Poynton
March 21, 2011 at 08:36

The Telegraph reporting on this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8394566/Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html

Anna
Raccoon March 21, 2011 at 08:53

They catch up eventually……

Clarissa March 21,
2011 at 00:27

Blogged? Check.
Bothered my MP? Check.
Passed this article onto
family in the hope they may read and be equally as furious? Check.

Justice March 20, 2011 at 23:27

Thank you John Hemming and all that you have done!!!

ad March 20, 2011 at 21:53

I have just tried searching for “family courts” and super-injunctions on
the Liberty website.

Sweet F.A.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/search.php?q=hyper-injunction

I’m not even surprised.

Mike March 20, 2011 at 20:57

Anna

I have drafted about twenty seven posts and deleted them. They boil down to
how proud the late lamented Reichs Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler would have been of
the policy we have. AND we even have an S(ocial) S(ervice) to enforce it: the
little chicken farmer must pleased.

PS Aren’t some of my family’s names carved on war memorials having tried to
stop this kind of thing?

Stephen Brown
March 20, 2011 at 20:29

I have sent the article linked to my daughters, both of whom are studying
Law, and I have asked them to bring the contents to the attention of their
respective tutors. I have also sent the same link to Legal Practitioners who
work outside of the UK but in English Common Law Jurisdictions and have asked
for their comments.

I am a retired Police Officer: when I read the section regarding the sale
of three properties to persons and businesses using the same address in
Chingford, my very first reaction was, “This smacks of corruption.”

The whole sordid subject of super injunctions must be exposed to public
scrutiny and, in the best interests of what we term “Justice”, such
injunctions should be banned other than in the most carefully worded
circumstances, limited to the security of the State.

Bill
Sticker March 20, 2011 at 17:00

Surely there is a case for outlawing such ‘Hyper’ or ‘Super’ injunctions as
they strike at the very foundations of Law itself?

Will blog. Thank you for highlighting this one.

dak March 20, 2011 at 14:49

Blogged.

Anna, thanks for continuing to let us know about these scandals.

Sean
March 20, 2011 at 12:33

Great post, the simple truth is we take freedoms, we are not given
them.

peter oakes March 20, 2011 at 11:07

We must thank John Hemmings MP and his Parliamentary supporters
for
their proposed intentions re: their meeting 17 March 2011 in
the House of
Commons.

Now the unpleasant reality: The following day 18March 2011 Daily Telegraph
by Tom Whitehead.

” Curbs on gagging orders ruled out by top judge ” The
intelligence
dept. of the “legal mafia” is second to non ! While MPs were
debating
Bill of Rights Law in the 1690,s the Master of the Rolls judge
Neuburger
was enforcing Law relating to The Star Chamber 1641. Where
secret
procedure bye-passed Parliament and enforced tyranny !

Nueberger is upholding the unlawful -undemocratic- anti
-European
Citizens Rights by maintaining SUPER- INJUNCTIONS !

This power-crazed legal mafia Don is acting in his own self interest
to
protect himself from public hatred & ridicule ! Gadafi is an
amateaur
compared to this thieving B——–d. He needs to prevent the
British
media from publishing the truth ( for a change ). Get this in my
hand
right now I have a copy of a letter ! -6July 2000. Our
Ref.990213
from Rudi Vis MP To. The Rt. Hon? The Lord Irving of Lairg.

Quote : ” Dear Lord Chancellor Re: Mr. Ebert 23 Cranbourne
Gardens
London NW11 0HS. Ref 102017 from the Lord Chancellor.

The case of the above constituents will soon appear in the national
press.
There are extradordinary allegations of fraud and unlawful bias
against
Judge M.J.Neuberger.

My constituents may be evicted from their home this week.

I implore you to have the matter thoroughly investigated and to
stop
eviction until such time.

Yours Sincerely
( personaly signed ) Rudi Vis.

Question. Did Neuberger have a Secret Super-Injuction to prevent
the
facts being published in the National Press ? because The Mail.
Telegraph.
Times, and other papers were kept and have been kept
informed for the past
11 years. concerning thefts & frauds by bankruptcy
in the Insolvency
Service useing HM Court Service along with Mortgage,frauds, Pension Thefts
even the attempted theft of the Royal
Masonic Hospital by Neubergers
accomplices,s

Spread that far and wide, and while your on the Job Dame
E.Butler-Sloss
kidnapped C.R.B. from Stoke -on-Trent with the assistance of
Staffordshire Police Burslem.

Bill March 19, 2011 at 19:47

Orbiter
Agreed this probably not the discussion for this post.
Thanks
for trying to clear some of the obfuscation that surrounds this important
subject.

Apologies Anna not wanting to detract but it does have relevance IMHO.

Bill March 19, 2011 at 18:42

Orbiterj
“Common law” is still with us but in many many areas the common
law rules have been superseded by Acts of Parliament.

Statements like this are just more confusion. You put common law in
quotation marks and I know not why.
You also state that there are common
law rules. I have never seen a common law rule just common law.

You also state that;
If you consider crime – (a) common assault and
battery are both common law offences – i.e. theire definitions are to be found
in judicial decisions –

If this is the case as I believe it appears to be why did the CPS pursue
statute offences first?

Is common law there to be used by the lawyers and judiciary as a form of
insurance?
If statute is supreme and Parliament can basically do exactly as
it pleases then why hasn’t Parliament consigned all common law to the bin?

It doesn’t make sense.

And then I get to read this post which makes my hurt a little more.
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/03/those-who-would-rule.html

ObiterJ March
19, 2011 at 19:14

Bill – you ask many questions and I do not wish to dominate this
excellent post. I believe that the statements I have made (above) are
accurate. I will give brief answers:

Inverted commas – only to emphasize that common law is what exists in
some area of the law if no Act of Parliament has superseded it.

Many areas of the law originally governed by common law are now covered
in whole or in part by Acts of Parliament. I gave examples.

Common assault and battery are common law offences as is murder. Acts of
Parliament however affect certain aspects of all these.

Common law is not in any way some form of “insurance” – it is what exists
where statute has not intervened.

Why has Parliament not consigned all common law to the bin. Could be done
but then you would have to put in place CODES covering every aspect
presently covered largely by common law – e.g. contract, tort etc.
Essentially, that is what some continental countries did – e.g. France.

Best to leave it there but good to discuss !

555PPS March 19, 2011 at 17:16

Thankyou

Truthfulness
March 19, 2011 at 17:08

Tweeted.

Prodicus March 19,
2011 at 15:59

Tweeted.

pendlewitch March
19, 2011 at 13:58

Thank you Anna. Posted on several blogs and on twitter.

Nick
Drew March 19, 2011 at 12:57

done

Bacon is a good man too

if the courts, the lawyers and the council officers get the taste for
beating up on little people, it isn’t long before they get into the habit
generally

Jeremy Poynton
March 19, 2011 at 12:52

Shades of the Lubianka.

Facebooked.

Well done Anna.

Gildas theMonk
March 19, 2011 at 12:52

This is serious stuff. Your humble monk is somewhat indisposed at the
moment, but watch this space…

ObiterJ March 19,
2011 at 12:30

@Manu – as a matter of law, Magna Carta could be repealed. It is, legally
speaking, no more than just another statute and Parliament may alter the law.
In the case of certain statutes – and Magna Carta is one – it may be that
Parliament must legislate expressly to repeal it. This latter point arises
because of the Thoburn v Sunderland Council case where it was said by the
Court of Appeal that “constitutional” statutes could not be repealed by
implication.

Magna Carta is time-honoured and has had a massive impact on the free
world. Nevertheless, most of the original clauses related to the rights of the
barons under feudal law and dealt with matters which are obsolete in modern
times. This is why most of it has been repealed.

Bill March 19, 2011 at 13:21

My understanding and that is all it can be is that Magna Carta pre-dates
any Parliament. It is not a statute created by a Parliament so is outside of
any Parliaments sphere of influence.
A Parliament can only repeal a
statute created by itself or one of its predecessors.

That is not to say that Parliament can use the basis, meaning and words
of the Magna Carta to create its statutes and I am sure over the long years
of Parliaments coming and going this is precisely what Parliaments have
done. But the fact remains Parliament can only repeal or create
statutes.
Which human beings those statutes are binding is a whole
different kettle of fish. A debate not for today.

Today is to celebrate an MP doing what he was elected to do and to bask
in the proof that the mainstream media is totally controlled by the
politicians controllers.

ObiterJ March
19, 2011 at 13:31

@Bill – entirely agree with your last paragraph.

The “Supremacy of Parliament” was established after the English Civil
War and it is that Supremacy which enables it to make or unmake any law.
In fact, there were many medieval laws which were not made in a
“Parliament” as we now know it. However, the modern Parliament can
certainly amend or repeal or replace any of them and has done so over the
years.

Manu March
19, 2011 at 15:32

@ObiterJ – notwithstanding that Parliament has no doubt amended or
repealed statues since it came into being, can you confirm that it
actually has (rather than thinks it has, or has done so anyway and
no-one has objected) the power to repeal laws that pre-date it?

This would appear to be the central point. If so, then that would
appear to put the Freeman movement and the recent (and highly
entertaining) events at Birkenhead County Court this month in jeopardy…
Is ‘common law’ in fact no longer with us?

Or is this simply one of those obscure legal points that can be read
either way, with no straight-forward answer…?

Bill
March 19, 2011 at 16:47

I can only go off a recent event where a lady beat her rugby
playing husband in the street, soundly beat him, because he was
shagging around behind her back and she caught him out. The CPS went
for GBH, ABH both statute offences and there were no grounds so they
fell back onto a common law offence of battery to go forwards with a
prosecution.

Thankfully the district judge made the ‘sentence’ community service
as he could see things as they were not as the CPS implied… but this
illustrates to me at least that common law is different and is
superior to statute law.
If they went for common law offence first
and then statute offence then statute would be superior.
It also
suggest although I have no proof that Parliament and more especially
the government of the day makes it all up as they go along until it
fails and THEN they fall back on common law as in this brave lady’s
case.
This has to mean there are two different systems in
play.
Parliamentary statute codes and common law. Common law is
outside of Parliament and statute code is inside Parliament and we the
human beings who live upon these British Isles are not supposed to
query Parliament or the members of the Law Society in any way even
though we are not members of the Law Society and have not been asked
to consent to rule by Parliament.

There is much deliberate obfuscation of the very real difference
between legal and lawful by members of the Law Society and the people
in permanent government, the civil service and private secretaries.

I would love to see or read some definitive proof one way or the
other of what the reality is but I suspect that reality will turn out
to be what any of us want it to be.

If the country disappears into a Federal European state or some
despot invades the country and destroys Parliament the alleged
parliamentary democracy we live under today will be changed to
something else so clearly all statutes and codes can only exist
because we allow them to.

This stuff makes my brain hurt. Where is the Deep Though computer
when you need it?

ObiterJ March 19, 2011 at 18:28

Yes, Parliament has the power to change any law including Magna
Carta and even if the law predates Parliament. It matters not:
Parliament is Supreme.

“Common law” is still with us but in many many areas the common law
rules have been superseded by Acts of Parliament.

If you consider crime – (a) common assault and battery are both
common law offences – i.e. theire definitions are to be found in
judicial decisions – (b) murder is a common law offence though many of
the partial defences to it are now statutory – (c) theft was a common
law offence originally but is now a statutory offence (Theft Act
1968).

In our non-criminal (civil) law – (a) much of the basic law of
contract is common law; (b) most of the law of tort is common law with
statute intervening here and there.

Work
Programme April 26, 2011 at
16:26

Parliament isn’t supreme. European law is absolute. Anything done
in UK Courts and Parliament can be undone if Europe got itself
involved.

Niklas
Smith March 19, 2011 at 15:35

Magna Carta is a statute, even though it was “passed” by a group of
people we would not now recognise as being our Parliament (basically a
bunch of barons). But in 1215 the ad hoc group of powerful nobles who
brought King John to heel were the nearest thing we had to a
Parliament.

Proof of the fact that Magna Carta is “just” a statute is that it has
indeed been amended over the years. In fact most of its articles have
since been repealed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Repeal_of_articles_of_the_Charter

What this suggests is that a written constitution might be a good
idea…

uk Fred March 19, 2011 at 12:25

Thanks Anna.

Now sent to several contacts who will see it for what it is.

This is not nasty, it is Nazi.

ObiterJ March 19,
2011 at 12:25

Here is a link to this Westminster hall debate on the Parliament
website

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/march/westminster-hall-debate-bill-of-rights/

I have discussed Lord Neuberger’s speech on my blog and have been delighted
to discover this excellent post and have referred to it in my post.

http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011/03/lord-neuberger-speech-to-judicial.html

Scan March 19, 2011 at 17:08

Thanks for that, ObiterJ!

Richard B March
19, 2011 at 12:17

Posted and linked.

Thank you Anna.

Dick the Prick
March 19, 2011 at 12:03

‘”You are correct when you suggest that I take the view that I am not
accountable to you as an MP for the way in which I act in individual
cases.”

Have I fallen off a cliff and banged my head. The standard retort would be
then who on chuff’s earth are you accountable you blithering ejeet? It makes
me want to puke.

Manu March 19,
2011 at 11:53

May I ask a question based on something in the speech? It’s about this
passage:

“There is another old constitutional law that I would like to refer Members
to: the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta 1297 is the version that is in force-in
statute. It is rather sad, in some senses, that so little of it remains. A lot
of it has been repealed, and only articles I, IX and XXIX are left.”

Based on what I have read on other sites recently, I understood that the
Magna Carta and the other core elements of the common law could not be
repealed by Acts of Parliament (statutes). Yet here is an MP stating the
opposite. Who is right?

PT March 19, 2011 at 11:18

Can this be seen as an encouraging sign? Maybe. Either the Judiciary, and
law practitioners in general, are gradually and deliberately making themselves
unaccountable to the whole of the rest of society, or, just possibly, and
unusually for such shameless creatures, they are so ashamed of some of their
decisions that they feel the need to conceal them from those outside the
Sacred Temples of The Law; the real question in either case is, why?

JuliaM March 19,
2011 at 10:57

“It took the bravery of John Hemming to remember why he was sent to
parliament by his constituents to speak out.”

Hemmings has been hoeing this lonely row for a long, long time. Good to see
him finally start to get somewhere.

Joe Public March 19, 2011 at 10:55

Another day of “learning” about our judicial system.

Thanks Anna.

Scan March 19, 2011 at 10:23

Why isn’t this on the Westminster Hall archives on Parliament TV?

Anna
Raccoon March 19, 2011 at 10:49

Good question!

Dave H March 20, 2011 at 09:47

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7854&player=windowsmedia

Dominic Allkins
March 19, 2011 at 10:17

Done Anna – to FB and twitter.

Thanks for highlighting. I’m ashamed to be English when I read stories like
this. The Stasi would have been very happy with this.

Olly March 19, 2011 at 09:36

:-O

Well done that man @ John Hemming MP

Dave H March 19, 2011 at 09:29

Duly posted to a few places. Regardless of the merits of the state’s case,
one should always have recourse to one’s MP.

If the case as serious enough that the child ought to be in care then that
should have been done up-front, regardless of who might be talking. To use it
as a threat is just oppression of the lowest kind and not in the interests of
the child.

Smoking Hot March 19, 2011 at 09:25

Excellent work Anna. How they must hate the blogosphere, so much so that l
fear it too will eventually be censored. Let’s not waste the opportunity we
still have.

I’ll do my bit.

Bill March 19, 2011 at 09:09

Done!
And before breakfast as well!!

Anna
Raccoon March 19, 2011 at 09:18

Who needs prunes!