I have for some time been concerned about secrecy in judicial processes. I was pleased to have the opportunity at a Back Bench Business Debate last Thursday to look at some of these issues. Many MPs have found that local authorities and solicitors attempt to stop constituents from talking to them about Social Services Court Cases (adults or childrens). I have had two cases of this. One where a father was threatened that his daughter would be taken into care unless he stopped talking to me. The other was where sisters were threatened with jail if they continued talking to me about a Court of Protection Case.

The debate is worth reading for people to understand more of the details. To cut it short, however, there was a case in Australia where a firm of solicitors was held in Contempt of Parliament because they threatened a constituent with action if he gave information to his MP.

Contempt of Parliament is a piece of constitutional law that many people don’t know about. Last year, for example, Withers LLP were found in contempt of parliament because they threatened me with legal action unless I agreed not to say something in parliament.

Speaking in Parliament has a special legal protection called privilege. It allows MPs to say things with legal immunity. That immunity includes revealing details of secret court hearings.

I revealed a number of court secrets during the debate. The one which will probably get the most attention is the hyperinjunction about potentially toxic drinking water on boats. A large corporation had bullied a painting manager into remaining silent about a potential risk to human health from drinking water which was stored in tanks with defective paint. He was even prevented from talking to the coastguard about it.

This I called a “hyperinjunction” because it was even more secret than a super injunction. Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights requires that (inter alia) “Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

I will emphasise the first part “Judgement shall be pronounced publicly …” The hyperinjunction requires a number of unusual things. Firstly the existence of the case cannot be mentioned. Secondly it cannot be mentioned to a No Win No Fee Lawyer, you have to have paid the lawyer first. Thirdly you cannot talk to an MP about the case.

I believe that the third item makes the judgment a contempt of parliament.

I am also concerned about the number of people who are imprisoned in secret and the lack of accountability of both secret courts and the office of the official solicitor. I see too many irrational decisions in secret proceedings and it is important to remember that the key accountability of judicial process is that of explanation – viz the judgment. If everything is secret then there is no proper accountability.

John Hemming is the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley

Tags: John Hemming, Parliamentary privilege