De Menezes: The Met Is In Difficulty

The killing of M de Menezes is notorious. I will not recite the facts again.

It is dangerous to report snippets.

It is dangerous to report anything that you have not personally heard.

Lastly, I have no wish to prejudice any investigation.

However, the following small extract from The Times' report is disturbing:

The officer, known as Ken, ... told the jury “there was no identification from grey team [the surveillance team] at any time.”

I say no more.

British Ambassador To The Philippines Interrogated About Sexual Abuse Of Maid: Perhaps, Not

The above is not a very funny sketch. I did not laugh at all but ...

In China View (the title link) it is reported:

"It was revolting. It was disgusting and an insensitive and racist attempt to satirize a scene of exploitation," said Risa Hontiveros, a Philippine lawmaker, demanding an apology from the BBC.

She said that "by making a horrible scene of exploitation an object of ridicule, the show trivializes an act of abuse commonly experienced by [Filipino] workers abroad."

Oh, come off it!

You can also visit The Times story and find that:

"... [a] petition has been set up by a group called the Philippine Foundation, which is calling for the re-education of the BBC."

Oh, go on, pull the other one,

The Re-education of the BBC!

This is the suppression of free speech red in tooth and claw.

Isn't "re-education" a Chinese communist concept meaning, in essence: do as we say, think what we tell you and become our slave OR WE WILL TORTURE YOU TO DEATH?

I apologise immediately for the capital letters: an Internet solecism, I know. But just this once we need them.

And what we do not need is a shameful, spineless, cowardly and, unfortunately, typical response from our political leaders:

"...the British Embassy in Manila distanced itself from the broadcaster by saying the organisation has editorial independence and the views expressed and portrayed by the network “are completely independent” from the Government.

It said Filipinos in Britain “are an important part of British society, making invaluable contributions to our scientific and service sectors, and enriching UK culture”.

Oh, well that's all right then!

ONE QUESTION ONLY:

Is free speech of any importance to any supposedly democratic government anywhere in the world?

Ladd v Marshall Still Rules After Over 50 Years: Time to Abandon It?

Ladd v Marshall (see the title link) is the most important decision governing appeals in England and Wales.

It is also a decision, essentially, of Lord Denning. That alone would make it worth reading. Although a 1954 decision it is only much more recently available over the internet.

The core of the decision as follows:

The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Bailii does not seem to add numbers to the paragraphs of old decisions but the above is about half way down.

The problem with Ladd v Marshall is that it can be used as a lazy excuse by the Court of Appeal to turn a blind eye to otherwise exculpatory evidence.

QUESTIONS:

Should we forget this decision and allow our appeal courts to simply decide whether someone was really guilty or not?

After all, if someone is not guilty why should he/she be kept in prison simply because his incompetent legal team failed to find evidence that they could have done if they had been competent?

The Neigbours Are Both "Potty" Says Lord Justice Ward

The Daily Mail reports today that Lord Justice Ward (pictured above) has labelled two neighbours continuing a dispute about a smallish amount of land in the Court of Appeal "potty".

This is a boundary dispute. Not all neighbour disputes are boundary disputes but all boundary disputes (alright, most of them) are neighbour disputes.

"Potty" is an apt description for most parties to neighbour disputes. They are as acrimonious as divorces with, usually, not much in issue in terms of the value of the land but huge amounts tied up in legal costs.

Lord Justice Ward gave Mr Robert Beton permission to appeal i.e. he gets the right to a hearing before a full three judge Court of Appeal. This is not a sensible use of court time.

Lord Justice Ward is fully aware of this. He had some trenchant comments to make:

“This is another of that hideous form of litigation called the boundary dispute, a form of litigation which is best not pursued.

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth? What you are arguing over is a few rhododendron bushes.

"If you live in St Georges Hill, you've got money to throw away, presumably. But why throw it away like this? You're all potty.

"Disputes of this kind are a most hateful form of litigation; go away and sort it out."

It is rare for permission to appeal applications to be reported. I hope this one is; if only for those words. They form a sensible basis for advising any client wishing to litigate a neighbour dispute.

My first choice is to advise my client's to forget it unless there is some serious land value involved and a strong case.

My second choice is to try to get the parties to agree a joint instruction to a land surveyor and enter into an agreement to be bound by his or her determination.

Hey presto. No huge legal fees and a surveyor who is likely to cost under a £1,000.

And it is going to be surveying evidence that is likely to be conclusive in most cases anyway.

Litigation to resolve these disputes is therefore correctly described by Lord Justice Ward as "potty".

Legal costs may not be the only reason to avoid litigation. In a divorce, sometimes you may be living in the same house but not always. A divorce is one of the most stressful processes you will encounter in your life. In a neighbour dispute you will, by definition, always be living next door to each other. Others may take sides.

So why is the Court of Appeal giving them time in this case against Lord Justice Ward's better opinion? The answer is because he has to. Mr Beton employed a QC who has found an arguable point:

"The judge found that adverse possession must have been manifest to the owner.

“But he failed to give weight to the fact that the presence of the bushes was such to make much of the fence not observable.”

Of such points are Court of Appeal decisions worthy and, even so, to get this far, someone had to be so oblivious to costs that he was willing to fund leading counsel to review the papers. The question remains, in the words of Lord Justice Ward:

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth?"

I will just add this. One neighbour dispute I was involved in lasted years. Both parties were well off and retired. It ended one day when one of the parties dropped down dead of a heart attack. Needless to say, they were having one of their verbal arguments outside their houses as to who could park where in their private road. My client wanted me to continue proceedings against the widow. I declined the instructions.

The case of the Right Honourable Gentlemen

NB: This is an old one just now made widely available on the BAIILI website.

There was an all star cast for this case including Lew Grade, Anthony Quayle, Coral Browne, Anna Massey and Corin Redgrave. Yes, the two separate branches of the acting profession combined here!

A Mr Littler thought he was being shafted when his four stars served notice to expire on the same day that they would be leaving, again on the same day 28 days later. It was accepted by the court that this would terminate this successful play.

Mr Grade (as he then was) represented all of the actors through one of his companies. All of the resignation letters were in essentially the same terms.

Mr Littler thought that it was a conspiracy to get him out of the theatre because Mr Grade wanted to move another play into the theatre.

Do you agree? I will not spoil the ending. Read this one.