An eye for an eye will make us all blind

I previously posted this as my Christmas message but you really should watch it.

Trent Health Authority Guilty of Abuse of Power but No Redress for Victims: A Monstrous Injustice?

I am conscious of the need for a sub-editor to work on a title such as the above but read this...

Trent Strategic Health Authority* has been held guilty by the House of Lords of ruining Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business and causing them "serious economic harm" on the basis of a "without notice application that ought never to have been made".

[*Note: Trent's liability arises as successor to the Nottingham Health Authority, as is made clear in the judgments. But "they inherit any liability incurred by their predecessors". ]

Yet, Mr and Mrs Jain have no redress under English domestic law and will receive no compensation.

All of the law lords expressed great sympathy for the Jains and reached this second conclusion "with regret" for their "undeserved fate".

Many will be be of the view that where a government established body causes financial ruin to those subject to its authority AND is found to have behaved wholly improperly BUT its victims have no remedy THEN it follows that:

(a) something has gone badly wrong with the law; and

(b) a serious injustice has been allowed by the law to happen.

This is simply a logical proposition based on underlying assumptions concerning morality and justice. The assumptions are shared by most who live in democratic societies (of whatever religion or none). Such people may struggle to understand this decision but only if they are not also lawyers. We lot are used to the discordance between the law on one hand and justice on the other. It's one of the things that get us a bad name.

You should read the judgments by following the title link if you want to see how this discordance occurs.

Let us look at what Trent did (this is paragraphs 6-9 of the judgment of Lord Scott of Foscote):

"6. Mr and Mrs Jain's only recourse was to appeal to a Registered Homes Tribunal. This they did. But there was no procedure available for an expedited appeal and no procedure enabling a stay of the magistrate's order pending an appeal to be obtained. We were told that the procedures under which appeals to a Registered Homes Tribunal can be made lead to a minimum delay of six weeks before an appeal can be heard. In the event, Mr and Mrs Jain's appeal was not heard until February 1999, over four months after the order had been made, and, not surprisingly, by the time the appeal was heard irrevocable damage had already been done to their nursing home business, with an adverse knock-on effect on other assets that they owned.

7. The appeal, heard by the Tribunal on 8 and 9 February 1999, was a resounding success. But the success came too late to afford them more than the satisfaction of vindication. The Tribunal, having heard evidence from the Authority in purported justification for the action they had taken, did not call for any evidence from the Jains in response and were scathing in their criticism of the Authority. In the Tribunal's nineteen page Reasons For Decision one reads of the inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial information in the statutory statement that had been placed by the Authority before the magistrate, of insinuations by the Authority of abuse of residents notwithstanding the absence of evidence sufficient to justify any charges of abuse, and of untrue suggestions by the Authority of failure by the Jains to comply with various statutory regulations. Some of the complaints made in the statutory statement about the running of the nursing home did, in the view of the Tribunal, have some substance but, commented the Tribunal, "none warranted the immediate closure of the home". They said that "there was no reason for supposing that the residents could not properly have been protected by proper monitoring by the inspectors and the provision of advice where necessary". The statutory statement had complained that building works of improvement being carried out at Ash Lea Court had produced an unsatisfactory physical environment for the residents, but the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the dust from the building works "posed any risk to the life or health of the residents" and concluded that the conditions at Ash Lea Court had not justified an application for an order under section 30 :

"… the respondents have wholly failed to persuade us that an application for an order cancelling registration under section 30 was an appropriate way of meeting [the Authority's concerns about the running of the nursing home]"

8. The Tribunal was particularly scathing about the Authority's decision to make their application ex parte and without notice to the Jains. While accepting that there had been "no bad faith" on the part of the officials who, on behalf of the Authority, had been responsible for making the application, the Tribunal said that they could see

"… no justification whatever for the failure to warn [the Jains] that the application was to be made"

So the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order of 1 October 1998 and expressed, as a coda, their regret that they had no power to order the Authority to pay Mr and Mrs Jain's costs: cold comfort, no doubt, for the Jains.

9. The upshot of this sad story is that Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business had been ruined and serious economic harm had been inflicted on them by an ex parte without notice application that ought never to have been made".

Well, there you go Mr and Mrs Jaine. Trent are wholly discredited, have abused their powers, you have been ruined and all you get is "vindication". Oh, you can try your luck in Europe if you like. You will need to finance it if you can or get funding from the LSC.

You might also sympathise with the Jaines in respect of the finding of no bad faith. Read all of the judgments. I do.

Thai Boxing And Child Abuse: Mum says "It Don't Bother Me."

OK, there are limits to any parent's freedom. That kicks in when you expose your children to harm.

The parents who allow their children to participate in Thai kick boxing are simply the lowest members of our growing underclass.

They are stupid. They have no morality worth speaking of.

The fact that their children have been coached into expressing pleasure in this "sport" means nothing other than that it exemplifies the psychological abuse accompanying the physical abuse.

Where are social services when they are really needed?

Mr Justice Collins Strikes Blow Against UK Government's Assumption Of Dictatorial Power

See my previous post Terror Or Freedom? commenting on The Times' prediction that Mr Justice Collins was about to deliver another body blow to the UK government's draconian anti-terror laws. They were right: see the title link.

Let me make it clear. I have no quarrel with very strict anti-terror laws. There are only two provisos. The laws must be (a) proper laws approved by Parliament and (b) in accordance with fundamental human rights.

Mr Justice Collins, I think, agrees. I do not suggest that he agrees with any other of my comments.

It is simply wrong that by executive action the government can freeze assets on the basis of undisclosed information and provide no effective avenue of appeal. This is such a fundamental breach of the rule of law that such actions are insupportable in a society that professes itself to be democratic and free.

The imposition in this way of such laws is characteristic of a dictatorship not a democracy. If the court's were to countenance laws of this kind they would be acquiescing, at the very least, in government by an oligarchy.

Thus any appeal must fail. If it does not then democracy has been abolished in this country.

Terror or Freedom?

The Times reports today that the High Court is about to deliver a new blow on terror to the government. See the title link.

I hope they are right. According to the article in The Times:

The government has used subordinate legislation to deny terrorist suspects the right to get legal advice, make them apply to the executive for £10 a week expenses (pardon? are we trying to starve them to death?), restricted their right of appeal to an appeal to the body that made the original decision and denied them access to any information that would enable them to establish grounds for an appeal.

Has it really gone this far?

It also seems that these truly draconian rules have been brought into force without being debated in parliament.

I almost refuse to believe that any Uk government would descend into this Stasi nightmare. I assume that The Times is not making it up, however.

Heroic And Troublesome Coroner Moved Sideways

The heroic Oxford coroner Andrew Walker (a thorn in the side of the Ministry of Defence) has been moved sideways.

It is not accurate to say that he has been sacked (as is widely reported on the internet). He was on a fixed term contract and his contract is not being renewed.

The reason given for this is that the "resources" (i.e. the three additional coroners appointed to deal with a backlog of military inquests in Oxford) are no longer required. See this article. The Department of Constitutional Affairs said:

"The government believes that these extra resources can complete all 85 inquests by May 2007."

I love the Dalek-like reference to human beings as resources!

However, Andrew Walker is indisputably an able, efficient and incorruptible coroner. Even if you want to get rid of him it is going to look bad if you simply dispense with the services of such a useful "resource". But, he is a bloody nuisance. See this article.

SOLUTION: Move him to be coroner for Hornsey in North London.

RESULT: The Ministry of Defence can rest easy. Des Browne can smile again. Not many dead soldiers in Hornsey.


If anyone says the government did not recognise Mr Walker's sterling qualities (thorough, precise, fair etc.) they can respond that his job as coroner was redundant (we terminated the other two temporary coroners as well), they have given him an important job in Hornsey and their critics are being unreasonably cynical. Oh, you are not really suggesting that the Department of Constitutional Affairs would make a decision to move a coroner simply because it was in the interests of the Ministry of Defence, are you?

Well, I might be. I know you do not do not do much in the way of joined up thinking but maybe you are capable of just a little when the self-interest of ministers is involved.

I can only imagine the response but it might consist of the exclamation "Oh, really!" and the stamping of a foot. Well, I was not suggesting that they had climbed out of their prams. Ok, I have not suggested it yet.

I should quote one tribute by one parent of a dead soldier:

"We wish to pay tribute to the coroner Andrew Walker, for his unrelenting quest for the truth, his objectivity in considering all the evidence and his humanity in the way he dealt with us, the family.

He is, indeed, a fine and wise coroner."

Well, you can see why the government does not like him!
Previous posts:

The Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker and Jason Smith

Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?

Mbeki Disgraces South Africa

President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki has brought disgrace on himself and his country by his continued refusal to criticise Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

He has long stated that Africa should regulate itself but his servile and hypocritical attitude to his neighbour wholly undermines this position. He seriously calls into question any suggestion that Africa is capable of performing this role.

Mugabe is just as bad as his white racist pedecessors:

Tibet Revisited: Where Lies The Truth?

Who do we believe? A video selection.

The King Canute Defence To Breaching Rights of Privacy

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects a person's right to privacy. There are exceptions. For a more detailed explanation try this site.

None of the exceptions applies in the case of Max Mosley and his interaction with prostitutes. Mr Justice Eady accepted this today:

"A relevant consideration here is whether there is a public interest in revealing the material which is powerful enough to override Mr Mosley's prima facie right to be protected in respect of the intrusive and demeaning nature of the photographs. I have little difficulty in answering that question in the negative. The only reason why these pictures are of interest is because they are mildly salacious and provide an opportunity to have a snigger at the expense of the participants. Insofar as the public was ever entitled to know about Mr Mosley's sexual tastes at all, the matter has already been done to death since the original coverage in the News of the World. There is no legitimate element of public interest which would be served by the additional disclosure of the edited footage, at this stage, on the Respondent's website."

A clear case then that The News of the World breached Mr Mosley's Article 8 rights and had no public interest defence. They should therefore be restrained from further publication of the video. Well, no, actually.

Paragraphs 22-24 of Eady J's judgment are as follows:

"When it comes to privacy, however, Mr Price emphasises that, when balancing his client's Article 8 rights against the Respondent's Article 10 rights, the visual display of the edited footage serves no legitimate purpose and that its grossly intrusive nature is unnecessary and disproportionate.

I was reminded of a passage in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] 2 AC 457, 475 at [60], where he referred to a hypothetical case in which there would be a public interest in the disclosure of the existence of a sexual relationship (e.g. because of corrupt favours), but where the addition of salacious details or intimate photographs would be disproportionate to any legitimate purpose and unacceptable. He observed that these would be likely to be intrusive and demeaning – even if accompanying a legitimate disclosure. Mr Price submitted that this would also be true in the present case.

I was also invited to have in mind similar observations made by Waller LJ in D v. L [2004] EMLR 1 at [23]:

"A court may restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph even if the taker is free to describe the information which the photographer provides or even if the information revealed by the photograph is in the public domain. It is no answer to the claim to restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph that the information portrayed by the photograph is already available in the public domain.""

He also said at paragraph 32:

"I am quite satisfied that Mr Mosley, even though he may have been misunderstood by some commentators, has accepted that he took part in the "S and M" session with the prostitutes. What he is denying is the link to Nazism. I do not consider that the edited footage shows, convincingly, that his denial is false. But, even if it is capable of being so construed, there is nothing to prevent the News of the World reasserting, with whatever prominence it thinks appropriate, that there was Nazi role-play. Accordingly, if there is any case for saying that Mr Mosley's denials have, in any way, misled the public, and that the record should therefore be put straight for that reason, the objective can be achieved effectively without displaying the edited footage of bottoms being spanked."

It seems all to be going Mr Mosley's way so far. He may therefore have been surprised by the closely following paragraph 34:

"As Mr Millar has pointed out, if someone wishes to search on the Internet for the content of the edited footage, there are various ways to access it notwithstanding any order the Court may choose to make imposing limits on the content of the News of the World website. The Court should guard against slipping into playing the role of King Canute. Even though an order may be desirable for the protection of privacy, and may be made in accordance with the principles currently being applied by the courts, there may come a point where it would simply serve no useful purpose and would merely be characterised, in the traditional terminology, as a brutum fulmen. It is inappropriate for the Court to make vain gestures."

And he may have been even more surprised by the conclusion:

"In the circumstances now prevailing, as disclosed in the evidence before me, I have come to the conclusion that the material is so widely accessible that an order in the terms sought would make very little practical difference. One may express this conclusion either by saying that Mr Mosley no longer has any reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of this now widely familiar material or that, even if he has, it has entered the public domain to the extent that there is, in practical terms, no longer anything which the law can protect. The dam has effectively burst. I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order against this Respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture. Anyone who wishes to access the footage can easily do so, and there is no point in barring the News of the World from showing what is already available."

I have read the judgment twice and it still seems to mean that newspapers can get away with the Canute defence if they act quickly, generate enough interest and are copied widely over the internet. They are then (a) immune from attack, (b) can then get away with republication of material originally published in breach of Article 8 and (c) profit from that republication.

THE CANUTE DEFENCE: A GUIDE FOR NEWSPAPERS:

(1) Obtain information in breach of a person's human rights.

(2) Do so illegally if that is to your taste.

(3) Put it up on your website until you receive a letter of protest from that person's solicitors.

(4) Immediately take it down.

(5) Tell the court that so many copies were made whilst it was (illegally) on your site that there is no point in restraining you from putting it back up.

(6) You then say: "Yah! Booh! Sucks!" to the complainant.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) What principles were applied here (if any)?

(2) Even if the material is now in the public domain, should The News of the World be allowed to make further profit from admittedly unlawful behaviour - even if other people will do so?

(3) Does it make any difference to your answers to the above two questions that you are or may be personally disgusted by Max Mosley's behaviour?

(4) Should it?

(5) Are any of the above "leading questions" and, if so, which?

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I hold no brief for Max Mosley and I have no prurient interest in his personal life. I have not posted before concerning this and have not linked to the "salacious" material, although ordinarily I would not hesitate to do so. This post relates to an important decision on Human Rights and issues of principle. I hope Mr Mosley appeals. Not for his sake but because we need something better on this subject than, I am afraid, Eady J's judgment provides.?