Ben Emmerson QC: Full Statement

Following the evidence given this afternoon by Sharon Evans at the Home Affairs Select Committee, Ben Emmerson QC said this afternoon:

“The effective operation of any public inquiry requires that panel members are able to hold full and frank discussions in confidence and take collective responsibility for their decisions.  This is reflected in the terms of their appointment which provide that the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information is a breach of contract justifying immediate termination.

Sharon Evans has repeatedly disclosed confidential information in public and has made a number of public statements that are factually misleading. These were serious violations of her duties as a panel member and undermine the integrity of the inquiry and the confidence of victims and survivors.

It was my clear duty as counsel to the inquiry to bring these breaches to the attention of the panel and the Home Office. I also pointed them out clearly to Ms. Evans herself on a number of occasions, and it was this which led her to accuse me of bullying her.

These allegations of bullying and intimidation are entirely baseless. As the Home Office will confirm, Ms. Evans’ complaints have already been fully investigated and dismissed as unfounded, something she neglected to mention when she gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee this afternoon.

The advice that I gave Ms. Evans was legally correct and entirely necessary in the circumstances.”

ENDS

Ben Emmerson QC| Matrix Chambers

Advertisements

11 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

11 responses to “Ben Emmerson QC: Full Statement

  1. Pingback: Ben Emmerson QC: Full Statement | Alternative News Network

  2. Pingback: HASC: Panel Members 20th January 2015 | theneedleblog

  3. ditto last comment on last entry.

  4. Love he works at Matrix Chambers, sums it up perfectly.

  5. “The effective operation of any public inquiry requires that panel members are able to hold full and frank discussions in confidence and take collective responsibility for their decisions. This is reflected in the terms of their appointment which provide that the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information is a breach of contract justifying immediate termination.

    Legal speak for I am saying absolute bullocks, casting a wide net that sounds full of meaning but on closer inspection means nothing.

  6. artmanjosephgrech

    Hang it is OK for Mr Emmerson to make a public statement when attacked in public but not individual panel members. I see I thought this was a independent panel Inquiry

  7. dpack

    it would seem the panel are not of one mind as to protocols or purpose.
    that might be a good thing ,it might not.

    on a panel with very diverse backgrounds and objectives there is plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding as well as the possibility of demonstrations of the arrogance of assumed power.

    considering the circumstances leading to 2 chairs being found to be very unsuitable for the role and what appears to be extreme reluctance on the part of the state to address the very serious issues that have been exposed by a variety of court cases,uncontested and well founded allegations ,deliberate and easily recognized(although on occasions partially effective)smoke and mirror tactics etc etc anyone with an “establishment”background should be reminded that a “public inquiry” could be replaced by an inquiry by the public.

  8. anon

    Looks like the Inquiry is tearing itself apart.

    Perhaps it was always the government’s intention to delay and prognosticate.

    Perhaps it would be better to hold an inquiry that is independent of government control and without lawyers.

  9. Anon1

    Contracts don’t prevent anyone testifying,giving evidence or having personal opinions . Emerson is the Home Office placement. The fact he mentions a home office enquiry cleared him means he must be in the wrong.

  10. Pingback: Sex abuse inquiry: ‘Victims receive death threats’ after MPs release names online | ukgovernmentwatch