Michael Hammett

Michael’s practice predominantly comprises complex public law cases and, to a lesser extent, private family and Rule 16.4 guardian work. Those matter he deals with usually involve such issues as serious non-accidental injury, sexual abuse, chronic neglect, national and international jurisdictional conflicts and intractable parental hostility.

Given his background in criminal law and years of experience, Michael is adept at dealing with witnesses – lay, professional and expert – and has the ability to assimilate large volumes of material in order to identify the fundamental issues lying at the heart of any case in which he is instructed.

Michael is regularly instructed in all aspects of Court of Protection welfare work.

Given his background in criminal law and years of experience, Michael is adept at dealing with witnesses – lay, professional and expert – and has the ability to assimilate large volumes of material in order to identify the fundamental issues lying at the heart of any case in which he is instructed.

Michael frequently undertakes DoLs work, both in the context of his care cases and in the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.

Given his background in criminal law and years of experience, Michael is adept at dealing with witnesses – lay, professional and expert – and has the ability to assimilate large volumes of material in order to identify the fundamental issues lying at the heart of any case in which he is instructed.

• Re. NW: Representing, in public law proceedings, a mother suffering from chronic mental distress, who was accused of poisoning her child with multiple prescribed medications. Despite the clear conclusions of hair-strand testing of the mother and child, which supported the suggestion that the child had been deliberately poisoned, the Court was persuaded to seek further expert trichological evidence, which led to a successful challenge of the hair-strand evidence and to the local authority abandoning the allegation of poisoning.
• Re. MC: Together with leading counsel, representing an intervenor in public law proceedings, who was in a pool of possible perpetrators in respect of life-threatening head injuries comprising multiple fractures and extensive subdural heamatomas. After a final hearing, which lasted two weeks and which involved 27 witnesses (five of whom were medical experts), the intervenor was excluded from the pool and linked care proceedings in respect of his own children concluded with the making of a supervision order.
• Re OW: Representing a mother in public law proceedings, where the sole issues were the causation of injury (a humeral fracture) to a cat and the impact that had upon the parents’ ability to care for their child. The case involved expert evidence from a veterinary surgeon, following which the Court concluded that the injury was accidentally inflicted and that the child could return home with the parents under a care order of limited duration.
• Re. SH: Representing a father in public law proceedings who, together with his wife, was accused of causing his son inflicted head trauma by way of a subdural heamatoma. At the initial listing for final hearing, the Court accepted submissions on behalf of the father, that medical evidence, suggesting that pre-existing encephalitis had nothing to do with the bleeding, could not safely be relied upon. In consequence, the final hearing was adjourned so that further expert evidence could be obtained. The case was then deemed sufficiently complex to warrant the instruction of leading counsel and when the final hearing was listed again, the Court accepted that the cause of the inter-cranial bleeding was, in fact, unexplained and not due to inflicted trauma and, accordingly, the LA’s application for a care order was dismissed.
• Re. G Children: Together with leading counsel, representing, in public law proceedings, a father of five children with behavioural issues, which the mother attributed to alleged sexual abuse by the father and paternal grandfather. After a fact-finding hearing lasting two weeks, the mother’s allegations were dismissed.
• Re. L Children: Representing a father resident in Belgium, in private law proceedings, in which he sought an order for contact with his three children, who had lived in at least four other jurisdictions but who were, at the time, living in the UK and who had been estranged from him by the mother’s conduct. Mother and the children were foreign nationals with only limited leave to remain. The mother objected to the father’s application and raised allegations of historic sexual assault. Those allegations had previously been litigated in multiple Courts in Europe and the Middle East and were found to have been without merit. The mother’s continued reliance on the allegations led the local authority, in the area in which the children were living, to intervene and to issue an application for a public law order. Proceedings were then transferred to the High Court and leading counsel became involved. There followed extensive and complex legal argument on the issue of res judicata and the appropriateness of further litigation of the mother’s allegations. The Court ultimately concluded that the allegations should not be re-tried, that the father was not a danger to his children, that they should enjoy regular and frequent staying contact with him and that a care order was required to ensure that the mother made the children available for such contact.

Michael has for a number of years held an appointment as a reviewer for Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono Unit), which is role that he undertakes on top of his paid and pro bono practices.

• University of Southampton (2000) – LLB
• Cardiff University (2001) – BVC

Please click here to view and download a copy of Michael Hammett’s Privacy Policy