Parents Against Injustice
Parents Against Injustice
JOHN WHAT ARE YOU UP TO NOW-EXPOSING THE TRUTH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/14/mps-solicitors-conte...
John Hemming MP says Withers LLP's behaviour threatened to undermine parliamentarians' freedom of speech
Andrew Sparrow, senior political correspondent
andrew.sparrow@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 17.03 GMT
Article history
MPs today agreed to investigate an allegation that a firm of solicitors committed a contempt of parliament by trying to stop a member speaking about a constituency issue in the House of Commons.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said the behaviour of Withers LLP threatened to undermine "the freedom of speech enjoyed by [MPs] as one of the principle foundations of the liberties of the British people".
The investigation into the alleged contempt, which will be carried out by the Commons standards and privileges committee, will be the first of its kind for almost 30 years.
Parliamentary privilege allows MPs the freedom to say what they want without fear of being sued when speaking in the House of Commons. Today, after a 10-minute debate, the Commons unanimously approved a motion saying Hemming believed that an email he received from Withers last year "committed a contempt of the house by seeking to intimidate a member in his parliamentary conduct".
The privilege motion, tabled by Hemming, called for the case to be investigated by the standards and privileges committee, the body that normally investigates complaints about misconduct by MPs.
In October last year another law firm, Carter-Ruck, tried to stop the Guardian reporting a parliamentary question tabled by an MP referring to the oil firm Trafigura and "the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast".
Carter-Ruck claimed that reporting the question would breach a super-injunction already in place. But the firm was accused of infringing the rights of parliament and, following a high-profile campaign on the social networking site Twitter, Carter-Ruck dropped its attempt to stop the Guardian reporting the question.
Hemming's dispute with Withers arose as a result of a campaign the MP has been conducting in his constituency relating to a planning issue. Withers wrote to Hemming last August claiming that a leaflet distributed by Birmingham Lib Dems defamed their client.
Yesterday John Bercow, the Speaker of the Commons, said that he would arrange for the email to be published in the official report of parliamentary proceedings and the full text is now available in Hansard.
The email includes this passage: "In order to settle this matter we, therefore, require an apology in respect of both the serious allegations plus payment of our client's costs, a substantial payment to a charity of his choice and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations, particularly in parliament.
"Your threat to make a statement in the House of Commons referring to our client's alleged 'spoiling tactics' in this and other situations and that our client's threatened proceedings amount to 'bullying and an attempt to gag opponents' is tantamount to blackmail.
"These allegations are untrue as our client is only trying to put right a serious wrong to his reputation. We note that you would only make these allegations under the cover of parliamentary privilege. My client objects very strongly to you doing this and would ensure, via other sources, that the House of Commons were fully appraised of the true situation and not misled."
Parliamentary privilege is protected by article nine of the Bill of Rights 1689, which says that "the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament".
In today's debate, Hemming said that Withers was acting for a landowner called Jeremy Knight-Adams. Hemming said that Knight-Adams was using "spoiling tactics" to stop a development going ahead that would benefit local residents.
Hemming said: "The freedom of speech in this house is about the freedom to speak on behalf of our constituents. In this instance, it is about the residents of 118 flats ... senior citizens who are in a vulnerable situation, who through the actions of one man, Mr Jeremy Knight-Adams, have to live in a building site. And that is wrong."
After the debate Withers issued a statement saying that "at no stage" did the firm attempt to limit Hemming's parliamentary privilege. Withers was just trying to get Hemming to give an undertaking, "in accordance with standard legal practice", that he would not repeat a defamatory remark, the firm said.
The reference to parliament in the email was only made because Hemming had threatened to refer to the allegations in the Commons, Withers said.
"We believe that we have acted entirely properly and professionally in asserting our client's rights and are confident that this will be proved to the [standards and privileges] committee," Withers said.
A spokesman for Knight-Adams said he did not want to comment on Hemming's claims.
If the Commons standards and privileges were to decide that Withers committed a contempt of parliament, it could order a lawyer from the firm at appear in person at the bar of the Commons the entrance to the chamber to be reprimanded. But this has not happened since the 1960s and this procedure is unlikely to be used again.
In 1981 the privileges committee investigated a complaint about a law firm that had sent a letter threatening Bob Parry MP with legal action in relation to something he said in the Commons. But the committee did not need to propose a punishment because the law firm sent a telegram containing an apology.
--
John Hemming MP says Withers LLP's behaviour threatened to undermine parliamentarians' freedom of speech
Andrew Sparrow, senior political correspondent
andrew.sparrow@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 17.03 GMT
Article history
MPs today agreed to investigate an allegation that a firm of solicitors committed a contempt of parliament by trying to stop a member speaking about a constituency issue in the House of Commons.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said the behaviour of Withers LLP threatened to undermine "the freedom of speech enjoyed by [MPs] as one of the principle foundations of the liberties of the British people".
The investigation into the alleged contempt, which will be carried out by the Commons standards and privileges committee, will be the first of its kind for almost 30 years.
Parliamentary privilege allows MPs the freedom to say what they want without fear of being sued when speaking in the House of Commons. Today, after a 10-minute debate, the Commons unanimously approved a motion saying Hemming believed that an email he received from Withers last year "committed a contempt of the house by seeking to intimidate a member in his parliamentary conduct".
The privilege motion, tabled by Hemming, called for the case to be investigated by the standards and privileges committee, the body that normally investigates complaints about misconduct by MPs.
In October last year another law firm, Carter-Ruck, tried to stop the Guardian reporting a parliamentary question tabled by an MP referring to the oil firm Trafigura and "the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast".
Carter-Ruck claimed that reporting the question would breach a super-injunction already in place. But the firm was accused of infringing the rights of parliament and, following a high-profile campaign on the social networking site Twitter, Carter-Ruck dropped its attempt to stop the Guardian reporting the question.
Hemming's dispute with Withers arose as a result of a campaign the MP has been conducting in his constituency relating to a planning issue. Withers wrote to Hemming last August claiming that a leaflet distributed by Birmingham Lib Dems defamed their client.
Yesterday John Bercow, the Speaker of the Commons, said that he would arrange for the email to be published in the official report of parliamentary proceedings and the full text is now available in Hansard.
The email includes this passage: "In order to settle this matter we, therefore, require an apology in respect of both the serious allegations plus payment of our client's costs, a substantial payment to a charity of his choice and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations, particularly in parliament.
"Your threat to make a statement in the House of Commons referring to our client's alleged 'spoiling tactics' in this and other situations and that our client's threatened proceedings amount to 'bullying and an attempt to gag opponents' is tantamount to blackmail.
"These allegations are untrue as our client is only trying to put right a serious wrong to his reputation. We note that you would only make these allegations under the cover of parliamentary privilege. My client objects very strongly to you doing this and would ensure, via other sources, that the House of Commons were fully appraised of the true situation and not misled."
Parliamentary privilege is protected by article nine of the Bill of Rights 1689, which says that "the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament".
In today's debate, Hemming said that Withers was acting for a landowner called Jeremy Knight-Adams. Hemming said that Knight-Adams was using "spoiling tactics" to stop a development going ahead that would benefit local residents.
Hemming said: "The freedom of speech in this house is about the freedom to speak on behalf of our constituents. In this instance, it is about the residents of 118 flats ... senior citizens who are in a vulnerable situation, who through the actions of one man, Mr Jeremy Knight-Adams, have to live in a building site. And that is wrong."
After the debate Withers issued a statement saying that "at no stage" did the firm attempt to limit Hemming's parliamentary privilege. Withers was just trying to get Hemming to give an undertaking, "in accordance with standard legal practice", that he would not repeat a defamatory remark, the firm said.
The reference to parliament in the email was only made because Hemming had threatened to refer to the allegations in the Commons, Withers said.
"We believe that we have acted entirely properly and professionally in asserting our client's rights and are confident that this will be proved to the [standards and privileges] committee," Withers said.
A spokesman for Knight-Adams said he did not want to comment on Hemming's claims.
If the Commons standards and privileges were to decide that Withers committed a contempt of parliament, it could order a lawyer from the firm at appear in person at the bar of the Commons the entrance to the chamber to be reprimanded. But this has not happened since the 1960s and this procedure is unlikely to be used again.
In 1981 the privileges committee investigated a complaint about a law firm that had sent a letter threatening Bob Parry MP with legal action in relation to something he said in the Commons. But the committee did not need to propose a punishment because the law firm sent a telegram containing an apology.
--
Add a Comment
© 2024 Created by Alison J Stevens.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Parents Against Injustice to add comments!
Join Parents Against Injustice