Hetty Baynes Again: Losing a Grip on Reality

It seems that it is not only Chris Keil who wants to post inane comments to the Hetty Baynes blog:

As there is no e-mail address to send you a discreet communication - I'm having to post it here on your site:

What you have written is very distressing and unprofessional and an outright defamation of character towards someone who has done nothing to deserve your venom.

I'm kindly asking you to remove them and request that you refrain from passing judgment on people or cases you know nothing about.

If this is truly a blog about legal matters - where are all the OTHER legal matters you are supposed to be 'commenting' on???? Funny isn't it that it is just this case you mention... Seems to me that you are acting on someone's behalf - sour grapes to say the least!

You do not need to be reminded what the consequences of libel are... Do you?

For reasons set out in the previous post I have not been checking up on this blog much recently. This is posted by another "Anonymous" (I will find you dear). I suppose that is because he or she wants to remain "discreet" or, possibly, not expose themself to ridicule. Too late!

1. No-one else has difficulty emailing me. Oh, alright, try going to The Firm.

2. You are either a very bad lawyer or a very badly advised lay person and clearly have no understanding of the law of defamation.

3. If you think this is a blog about one case then that can only be because you accessed one page. Either (a) you are fixated on Hetty Baynes and/or (b) you are Hetty Baynes and/or (c) you are off your rocker and/or (d) you are a perfectly nice sane human being who just had one too many on 17th September this year.

3. Sue me. Go on, I dare you. Your brain is addled.

4. Ooo! You can only sue me if YOU ARE HETTY BAYNES! Well, at least that would explain 2 above.

Gutter Politics is OK, says Judge Eady

Partial, biased, hard-hitting electioneering, even if it merits the description "gutter politics", does not sustain an allegation of malice to found a cause of action for injurious falsehood; so held by the leading libel judge Mr Justice Eady in his judgment in the case of Quinton v Pierce, released on the internet today.

Clearly, this judgment only applies to politicians and could be justified on the basis that if you want to participate in a dirty game do not expect normal rules of civilized behaviour to apply and certainly do not expect your opponents to treat you with any civility. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

To put that in latin (which we lawyers are no longer supposed to do): the defence could have been volenti non fit injuria or, going back to English, if you go into politics you are consenting to being traduced, vilified, blackguarded, having your character trailed through the gutter, your expenses questioned, your every word, act, omission etc. subjected to the utmost scrutiny, generally being booed and hissed at as if you were a pantomime villain (even, in those rare cases, where you are not) etc. etc. and you will have no right to complain because you knew what you were getting into you pathetic little moron.

Well, that is the ratio decidendi of the decision as far as I am concerned.

Do you agree?

Does Dr Michael Pelling Help Fathers or Children?

The notorious lay represenative of fathers in the English courts has been at it again. And this time it is not about contact with the father's children. It's about filthy lucre.

Well, I suppose Dr P is entitled to earn a crust.

The answer to the title question is: No, not a lot really. In fact, if you consider cases that he has been involved in (including his own sorry dispute with his ex-wife) he damages fathers and their relations with their children.

It is not simply that he gets up the noses of judges. He does that, however. He does it with such skill and alacrity that I sometimes think that he wants to lose.

If you are really tempted by having Dr Pelling represent you then you should first of all read the judgment in his latest debacle. You will quickly change your mind.

It is G v A and it becomes compelling reading at about paragraph 100.

For instance, would you really want your advocate to send in a written comment on the judgment as follows:

"In fairness to [the father] I would ask the reason why the cheque was stopped be stated. It was stopped on Dr Pelling's advice who drew [the father's] attention to the stated purpose of the £20000, for the mother's cost of moving, … , and pointed out that no move of the mother was on the horizon and that of course the problems of the settlement deed etc had not been resolved so the move was not going to take place in the near future. It was not reasonable to pay under those circumstances, especially as the Order made no provision for what would happen to the money if the move was not taking place, and on the mother's record there was real concern it would just be spent improperly and dissipated. It is not fair to [the father] as a businessman of probity to damn him in a judgment as a person who stops cheques when he owes money, which prima facie does not enhance reputation. [The father] cannot publicly reply to such aspersions because of the anonymisation (which does not guarantee that [he] will not become known to some people as the A in question)."

Mr Justice Munby saw that one coming:

I am content to record Dr Pelling's comments but they hardly seem to assist the father. The facts as I set them out in paragraph [6] are not disputed; nor could they be. The fact is that the father stopped the cheque in December 2006, at a time when his appeal against the District Judge's order stood dismissed, when the stay had long since been lifted and long before he made his application to the court on 15 June 2007. The fact is that when he stopped the cheque he owed the money. The fact, as now appears, that the father acted on the advice of Dr Pelling can hardly assist him; it merely throws an interesting light on Dr Pelling's approach to orders of the court.

As a lawyer, I naturally advise you to pay attention to orders of the court. If you want to take the advice of Dr Pelling then feel free to do so. If the advice, in the end, does not work out entirely costs neutral (financially or emotionally) then I am sure that Dr Pelling's insurance will cover you. Please check with him first, however.

STOP PRESS: Miners Scam Lawyers Jim Beresford and Doug Smith Struck Off

Well, thank goodness for that! I felt dirty all of the time these obnoxious people could say that they were a member of the same profession as me. I have only just received the good news and refer you to The Times report for further information. Here is Jim Beresford:

What a nice smile!

Walsall Social Services Condemned. Who Is The Guilty Man?

This is another case where a local authority gets it straight through the heart from the Court of Appeal but there may be little publicity because, although Court of Appeal decisions are delivered in open court, the press show little interest and do not attend.

This does not stop the press running stories complaining about our "secret" family justice system!

Before we get to this particular bad boy/girl social services department it is worth noting Lord Justice Wall's comment that "there are of course, as is always the case, no press in court, even though this court sits in public." In other words, if the press do not attend and do not report the cases they can, their complaints about secrecy ring a little hollow. This is, of course, my inference so it is my fault alone if I have misinterpreted Lord Justice Wall.

Well, what have "Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Social Services Department" (as they are referred to in the judgment, but not on their own website) done wrong?

For the specifics I am going to leave you to consult the title link. It is the strength of the comments made by the Court of Appeal that are of more general interest:

"The lamentable, totally lamentable, state of affairs in this case is that the local authority have utterly neglected their duty in a way which is worthy of the highest condemnation and that is what I give it."

"On 5 March this year the court ordered the local authority to file a statement by the Young Adults and Disability Team by 14 March. For the second time this local authority cocked a snook at the order of the court. For the third time the court ordered on 25 March that that statement be served by 4 April. For the third time the local authority simply ignored it. In the result the matter was sent to the county court and, as I have already recited, HHJ Mitchell accepted the undertaking from the team manager of the local authority to file their pathway plan etc by 4pm on 4 July and heigh ho, what a surprise, for the fourth time the local authority metaphorically raised two fingers in the air to the court and ignored everything the court has ordered. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. If time had permitted it, I would have directed the director of the Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Social Services Department personally to attend this court and proffer his explanation and his apology. Instead, I will direct that he writes to this court and to the Wolverhampton Court, giving both his explanation for his disgraceful failure of duty and to proffer his sincere apologies. He is fortunate not to be facing a summons for contempt."

"To make matters abundantly plain, and to demonstrate to the local authority that this is an order which we expect to be obeyed, this order will be endorsed with a penal notice and the director is to be given the assurance by those who represent him today that his contemptuous disregard of this order could lead to an application to commit him and, without prejudging that matter, my preliminary view is that it stands a good prospect of success and he should be advised accordingly."

"It invariably happens in these cases that we never have before us the people who are actually responsible for what has gone on. Some wretched social worker who has just been handed the papers over a few days before is usually put forward as a sacrificial lamb, as a victim to this court's anger and legitimate wrath, and that is what has happened in this case."

Who is the Guilty Man?

These are about the strongest comments I have come across, certainly since Brighton and Hove Social Services were condemned.

I cannot be certain who the director is because there is no-one on Walsall's website who is described as their director of social services.

There is a Mr David Martin:


but he is described as "Executive director for social care and inclusion". I certainly would not want to finger the wrong man.

Terrorist Mark Haddock Hides His Face

Mark Haddock (an alleged murderer but only in prison for GBH* with intent) has won the right to hide his face, at least for the time being.

No-one can publish his picture; that is, a picture of his new face. Obviously, we can still publish his old face:
Well, let us hope that this attempt to hide from his former friends in a terrorist organisation works better than the last one:

This is not a man deserving of the sympathy of the court or of its protection. However, the protection is limited - see the title link.

If you want to know who Mark Haddock is you might start with his wiki entry.

Haddock was an insider in the UVF* and latterly a Special Branch Informer. It has been said:

There would have been more people in the cemeteries of Northern Ireland if we hadn't run people like Mark Haddock

But is that true? Others think that he put a lot of bodies there himself.

*GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm (for when you get away with murder)
*UVF = Ulster Voluntary Force (a Protestant paramilitary organisation)

The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

The Royal Bank of Scotland disciplined an employee because she was let down by a childminder and could not work on 22nd December because she had to look after her 5 year old and her 15 month old baby.

Timetable:

8th December - Mrs Harrison notified by childminder of her unavailability for the 22nd.

12th December - notifies employer that she has tried everything but cannot find a substitute.

20th December - Royal Bank of Scotland says words to the effect "Work, or else".

The Royal Bank of Scotland is then as good as its word; no doubt having carefully thought through its consequences for employee relations, customer relations and its public image.

It not only does not pay Mrs Harrison for the day...

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

it then resists her complaint to the Employment Tribunal...

it is then puzzled as to why it loses...

and it is then crass enough to take the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. See the title link...

where, as a moron in a hurry could have predicted, it again loses.

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

2. Would it make any difference to your opinion if RBS's actions were actually unlawful? (See the title link for the legal decision).

3. If you had a choice, would you work for:

(a) The Royal Bank of Scotland; or,
(b) Another Bank; or,
(c) Someone else; or,
(d) Anyone else as long as it was not the RBS.

4. If you could not find another job, would you prefer to be unemployed rather than take a job with RBS?

5. Do you want to be a customer of RBS?

COMMENT:

Luckily, I am not a customer of RBS and so do not need to change banks but I would if I was.

The credit crunch has nothing to do with this. It started well before that was even on the horizon.

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

All Over For The Lloyds Names

They entered a market they said they did not understand. Indeed, they did have an understanding. It was, however, their own understanding and not one based on misrepresentation by Lloyds. See the title link.

Their understanding was:

If I become a Lloyds name I shall get richer than I am aleady, quicker than I have so far and at no risk to me!

That is, they believed in fools' gold.

Not many will sympathise with their plight. The decade of litigation they have engaged in has secured them nothing. It has simply been a matter of postponing the evil day.

I thought the whole concept of being a Lloyds name was based on "honour" (ie. you pay up when you lose). It was not. It was simple greed and, if you got caught, you simply wriggled and squealed like a stuck pig.

Cases That Changed English Law: The Times Archive

The Times has created a fantastic archive of cases that changed the law, with summaries by Gary Slapper and links to the origanal Times law reports. Here are the links:

• Part 1: The cases that changed Britain: 1785-1869


• Part 2: The cases that changed Britain: 1870-1916


• Part3: The cases that changed Britain: 1917-1954


• Part 4: The cases that changed Britain: 1955-1971


• Part 5: The cases that changed Britain: 1972-2006

This a wonderful resource that I would love to have had when I was a law student but everyone interested in the law, or even just in human beings or life, will find fascinating tales here.

I will put a link to this post in the sidebar shortly so that it is easy to find.

Anyway, here is a sample of what you will find:

"In 1895, The Times reported on three trials of Oscar Wilde. It was the celebrity scandal of the century. The Marquis of Queensbury, who thought his son was being corrupted by Wilde, sent a card to Wilde’s club saying: “To Oscar Wilde posing Somdomite” [sic]. Wilde sued for criminal libel. Queensbury pleaded justification, accusing Wilde of soliciting more than 12 boys. The case had many marvellous episodes, particularly when Wilde was cross-examined:

COUNSEL: Have you ever adored a young man madly?
WILDE: I have never given adoration to anybody except myself.

Wilde lost after a fatal slip in cross-examination in which he seemed to say he hadn’t kissed a boy not because he was a boy but because he was ugly. Soon after, he was arrested for indecency. Wilde was eventually convicted after a second trial — the first jury failed to agree on most of the charges — and sentenced to two years with hard labour. The case included many shocking travesties of justice. For example, it came to light that throughout the proceedings, the young men who were testifying against Wilde were each being paid £5 a week by the police, an enormous sum at the time.

Nevertheless, Wilde’s courtroom wit was bountiful. Asked by the seasoned 44-year old prosecutor Charles Gill whether he exalted youth, Wilde said he did and added, to courtroom laughter: “I should enjoy, for instance, the society of a beardless, briefless barrister quite as much as that of the most accomplished QC.”

He was asked later whether his habit of giving cigarette cases to working class youths was not strangely expensive. Wilde replied that it was “less extravagant than giving jewelled garters to ladies”."