“Dear Home Secretary,

You seem very nice, and you have an interesting taste in shoes, which is a Good Thing in the eyes of the Lord. However, I understand that you have been a bit worried and upset by this Huntley thing lately, specifically that he wants to sue the Home Office for negligence. Apparently, he wants about £100,000 for an alleged failure to keep him safe from harm. I also understand that what is particularly worrying is that the costs of this little exercise may amount to £1 million pounds if you throw in your own legal team’s costs, and we all know things are bit tight, what with the deficit and all.

I know a lot of people say he shouldn’t get a penny purely on the grounds that he is a bad man and  a guest of Her Majesty, but I think you and I both appreciate it’s a bit more complicated than that. HMG does have duty to take reasonable care of its guests; some people may add the word “unfortunately”, but there we are.

However, I would like to help. If you like, I will do the case for you, and save you most of it. Here’s how.

First you appoint me as both as Judge and Counsel for the Defence. Irregular, I know, but hang in there – just bear with me

Huntley’s legal team will probably be on what I used to call legal aid (amazingly). It is actually quite hard to get legal aid these days, and my perusal of the Legal Services Commission’s Funding Code does not immediately make it plain how he would qualify.   Some categories (Human Rights, Judicial Review) still have legal aid funding available. Perhaps they will be able to shoehorn a claim under one of these labels.  There is also another category for “Very Expensive Cases” which seems rather self serving, since any Case can become Very Expensive if you want to it be.  You might want to have a look at that.

Anyway, assuming that they blag the Legal Aid Huntley’s legal team will first spend weeks investigating and ultimately writing a pre action letter which will be pages long, setting out all their complaints. I will draft a reply for you, as follows:

“Dear Sir,

We do not accept liability.

Yours sincerely

Etc”

Huntley’s team will then serve a long Particulars of Claim, which is actually unnecessary because (a) they have already told you what they are complaining about in their pre action letter and (b) all it is really saying is this: the Prison Service had a duty to take reasonable steps to take care of Huntley, and failed certain respects which are then set them out in numbered paragraphs. Without being silly, realistically I could do most of it in an hour or two over a bottle of Merlot, using my imagination; not the complete detail, but the gist of it.

Once the proceedings are received, I will serve a Defence in the following terms.

“The Home Office and the Prison Service disputes the allegation that it/they failed to take reasonable care and denies liability.”

Huntley’s legal team will make an application to complain about the Defence on the basis that it does not go into sufficient detail. I will hear and dismiss that application, because it plainly does. It crystallises the essential issue, and everything else is a matter of evidence.

At the same time, I will order a split trial of liability and quantum. That means that there is no reason for any medical evidence, and about one third of the time and costs of trial will immediately be saved.

There is then a process called Disclosure, in which you have to show them any documents relevant to their claim. Get a sensible graduate looking for work experience, bung him or her a couple of hundred quid, tell him or her to empty every filing cabinet in the jail and type out a list (but not to put anything embarrassing on it). Huntley’s solicitors can have that, and come in and photocopy anything they want. Job done.

Next, finally engage a solicitor. What you want is a sensible chap who has been around the block a bit, and you pay him or her well. His job will be to take statements from your witnesses for use at trial. It is, of course, quite wrong for a lawyer to coach a witness as to what to say, but the prison guards will all say that they did their best but if someone really wants to attack someone it’s impossible to prevent it. The attacker will confirm that he was cunning and could not have been stopped. About £5K for said solicitor and a day release at a pub of his choice for the attacker will get you a Rolls Royce job.

As I will be the Judge, I will need a sensible legal executive for the purposes of presenting the Prison Service’s defence (cost – £100 per hour, max). I will also need lots of tea and biscuits (cost – about £50 all in).  The procedure is as follows. I will first hear days of evidence from Huntley and God knows who else his team want to wheel out (a team of Quislings from the Health and Safety Executive, a Risk Awareness Consultant, Polly Toynbee, Paul the Psychic Octopus, whatever), and then hear the evidence for the defence. The job of the legal executive is to ask your witnesses their name, to swear the oath, and if their evidence in their statement true (note: the correct answer should be: “Yes”). That’s it. Then your witnesses will be cross examined. I will diligently take notes of all of this.

After the evidence is over I will then hear hours, if not days, of submissions from Huntley’s legal team, almost certainly fronted by a Silk (QC) about why Huntley should win. I will listen very carefully and very politely and make even more notes and nod sagely at appropriate places. I will then hear from the legal executive for the Home Office, who will read this statement:

“I submit the Home Office/Prison Service did everything reasonable. The duty of care is not absolute and Claimant has failed to prove his case.”

I will then retreat to consider my judgment. I will do this just like a real Judge by going on holiday for a few weeks before coming back and handing down a judgement which consists of reciting all the evidence and submissions and then stating the conclusion about who I think should win which I reached on first reading the papers anyway. So all I need to say at the end is:

“I find that the Home Office did everything reasonable and discharged its duty of care. Accordingly, the claim fails. I will now hear submissions on costs.”

I shall, of course, order costs against Huntley. This is a bit meaningless, as he has no money. If, as I assume, he has legal aid it is a bit problematic because his team get to claim their own costs out of the public fund. But I think, as Judge, I have power to summarily assess the amount of those cost. Which I would now proceed to do, assessing them at £8,000 in total, not the £500,000 plus they will have claimed.  You might be surprised I award them so much, but actually it’s probably on the low side of the going rate for a moderately well prepared three day County Court trial, which is about what this case deserves to be.  However, given a little thought and a bit of research, I might even find a way to deny them their legal aid completely.

Huntley’s team will ask for permission to appeal on both issues (substantive decision and costs), which I shall refuse. They will then go off and complain to the Court of Appeal, but you can swiftly make me a Lord Justice of Appeal, and I will hear their application for permission to appeal on paper, and dismiss it because they seeking to appeal against my findings of fact, and that is not the job of the Appellate Tribunal. They will renew their application for permission to appeal a single Judge in person (guess who?). I will do this just like a real Lord Justice of Appeal by sitting there looking bored and angry by degrees and then saying “application dismissed” before going to lunch.

You will thus have spent next to nothing on the case, and Justice has been done and been seen to be done.

I know they will all go off on a jolly to Strasbourg or wherever those lunatics are sitting, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Total costs I estimate at a reasonable £15,000 including tea and biscuits and disbursements. I know you may find even that unpalatable in these cash strapped days, but I hope you will also agree I have made a big saving. My only fee will be a slap up dinner for me and my special friend Sister Eva Longoria at the Nun and Firkin. Wednesday is curry and karaoke night, so that would be good. You can come too, if you like.

Yours sincerely

Gildas the Monk.”

2Mac August 11, 2010 at 14:37

With reference to the problem of Ian Huntley and his expensive little legal
issues about who has a duty to protect him. I am almost at a loss for
words.

I cannot understand a system where the innocent have no protection and yet
kiddie killers are provided with expensive round the clock protection and
legal aid.

Since I am no legal eagle I wonder what the position on this case would be
if he was to fall from a substantial height after slipping which I believe is
a common accident within prisons. Would the case be dropped due to the
complainer being bounced on the concrete from four floor up?

In my ranting opinion I propose all prisoners should be put into general
population. If a crime is so disgusting that other criminals kill you then so
be it. It would be Karma. It would also be a very good way to reduce the
prison population, save court fees and it would make you think twice about
committing a crime.

I saw this idea on an American documentary called “Escape from New York” it
was not a perfect system but it was still an improvement on our current
misguided idea about treatment.

You can teach a person not to steal, you can teach a person not to resort
to fighting to solve a problem, you can even teach a person some skills to
help them get a job when they are released from jail.

You cannot teach a pervert who killed and then burned two little innocent
girls so they could not tell their parents what sick shit had been done to
them and the fire destroyed the evidence of what had been done was destroyed
just so he could seek some sexual gratification.

For such extreme cases we need a long rope made from environmentally
sustainable material and a lamp post with a low energy bulb and we will
eradicate the problem one at a time thus ending the problem.

If we let these people live then they bread and if the problem is genetic
or environmental it will perpetuate. Not very popular but more sensible than
putting them in jail for 5-15 years then letting them come out and kill or
attack more members of society.

Spiral Architect
August 10, 2010 at 10:03

Why not just tell Huntley to drop his claim or else he will be sharing his
cell with a vicious homophobe?

The Nosey Mole
August 10, 2010 at 04:54

Gloria, I am sure that Mr Smudd (Roy?) will respond favourably to your
ministrations, you are better off with the devil you know rather than the monk
you do not know.

Eleanor August 10, 2010 at 00:18

You mean you’ve been stood up, Gloria?

Perhaps he’s been slavering, sorry, slaving over all they dirty books The
Church has got hidden away somewhere. You never know, there might be a
precedent or two in one of them.

sisterevalongoria69 August 10, 2010 at 15:04

He doesn’t need “dirty books” – he’s got me!
Kind regards
Sister
Eva Longoria

Anna
Raccoon August 10, 2010 at
15:13

sistervalongoria69,

I do trust we are not going to have an unseemly fight over the spent
carcass of one sad monk?

I have already informed Gloria that I reserve the right to first option
on promsiing posters, and until I decide that he isn’t worth getting all
hot and bothered over, both you and she can just keep your mits off.

sisterevalongoria69 August 10, 2010 at 16:46

Dear Anna,
It looks like he’s been a bit too free with his
favours!
I shall have words with him when he has finished Even
Song!
My prayers for your soul, for was I not Champion Full Bore
Pistol Shot of the Sisters of Blessed Relief 5 years
running!
Love
Sister Eva Longoria

Anna
Raccoon August 10, 2010 at
17:34

Dear Sister Evalongoria69,
I, in turn, won the under-13 all
Rutland Dyke Jumping European Championship at which I believe you were
merely one of the obstacles.
I then went on to be highly commended
in the short range Exocet missile launching Triathlon. My prayers for
your soul too. Gildas is mine.
As will Vengeance be,
too.
Regards,
Anna

Ancient and Tattered
Airman August 9, 2010 at 20:31

Gildas, your proposals have much merit and you deserve full credit BUT (and
it grieves me to say this) you are attempting to harness reason, common sense
and logic to a lunatic case in a surreal world.

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 20:56

I commend more brandy – it kind of evens things out!
Gildas the
Monk

Gloria Smudd
August 9, 2010 at 22:49

Since you’ve mentioned proposals A.a.T.A, I feel I can return to the
subject of marriage proposals. A certain Mr Gildas recently asked me for my
hand in marriage (here on Mme Raccoon’s blog) and I accepted.

I think it not insignificant that, every time my current husband has been
out of the house, I have been sitting on my doorstep with my knotted hankie
tied securely to a stick for at least a fortnight waiting for my suitor to
winch me away to happiness. Yet no matter how keenly I scan the horizon, no
Gildas-shaped swain has swung into sight. I have to conclude the his
proposal came as a result of Mr Gildas swigging one-too-many from a shared
chalice prior to settling his pious self down in front of the blessed
keyboard.

I am not by nature a bitter larger-lady but I now admit I feel hurt that
Mr Gildas’s invitation to share his life and spartan cell was merely a
flippant remark. Not only that but it’s going to take some chubby crawling
to get my present spouse to accept me back into the hovel. I might even have
to give up the doughnuts for a year or two, given that I know Mr Smudd isn’t
keen on back-flab.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 10, 2010 at 09:55

Mr Smudd isn

Woman on
a Raft August 10, 2010 at 11:42

Dear Ms Smudd

My initial investigations suggest that the cleric Gildas MJ is not a
wealthy man but his Order is worth a pretty pretty penny. If you will sign
this contingency fee arrangement – including a very reasonably

sisterevalongoria69 August 10, 2010 at 15:02

Dear Ms Smudd
I am very sorry to have to write to you in these
terms, but I think there are certain matters upon of which you should be
made aware. I have to say that Gildas the Monk of whom you speak has a
certain and most ill favoured reputation in the realm of Romance in the
past, and indeed has not earned his nickname as “Monk on The Run” for
nothing. Indeed it is no wonder he was all over Europe from Strathclyde to
Britain back in the 6th century. However, I must inform you that Gildas
and I now have a CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING, and I do not believe that this
unfortunate situation is entirely Gildas’ fault, for he has sworn to me
that he has REFORMED HIS WAYS.
I therefore feel that you cannot be
entirely free from blame in this affair. I forgive you, but lest I have
not been clear:
Hands off, baby!
Yours with Love
Sister Eva
Longoria
c/o The Order of Blessed Relief

Gloria
Smudd August 10, 2010 at 20:13

Dear Sister Eva Longoria

Thank you so much for taking the trouble to point out that you and Mr
Gildas have a CERTAIN UNDERSTANDING. I am sorry I have taken so long to
reply but I have been ‘all-of-a-fluster’ since I read your shocking post
and it’s taken a while for the cruel facts of this sorry tale to sink
in.

Suffice to say that I have now un-knotted my spotty hankie and
removed it from my elopement stick; I have taken off and put away my
best tabard top with peg-pocket; I have folded my wedding rainbonnet and
I’m afraid I have already wolfed all the Werther’s Originals I had set
aside for what I thought was to be a romantic journey off into the
sunset.

Though I am crushed by Gildas’ false affections, I am not a hefty
lady who is comfortable treading on the toes of others (and, believe me,
you know when I’VE trodden on your toes) and I can assure you that
Gildas the Monk will not be the cause of any future girlish flutterings
in my bosom.

I wish you and your ‘Monk on the Run’ a wonderful future
together.

Gloria Smudd (Mrs)

sisterevalongoria69 August 10, 2010 at 22:11

My Dear Blessed Child
This must indeed have been shocking news.
I can only offer the comfort and solace of knowing that Gildas the
Monk has been suitably punished.
I have had a free and frank
exchange of my view with Gildas, and even as I speak, he is holding
the targets for the under 17 Blind Women’s Shooting at Waist Height
Shotgun Club at the Convent.
I can promise he is most
penitent
With Love and Light
Sister Eva Longoria of the Sisters
of Perpetual Sin
PS
The .45 draws a little to the left when I
shoot

SeekingJusticeUK
August 9, 2010 at 20:08

Superb Gildas – You’re tomorrow’s pencil monitor.
I’m going to nick
this!
Great work

Joe Public August 9, 2010 at 19:37

“I will draft a reply for you, as follows:”

Or, even more succinctly:- “I refer you to the reply given in Arkell vs.
Pressdram (1971)”

http://mattwpbs.com/2009/08/10/i-refer-you-to-the-reply-given-in-arkell-vs-pressdram-1971

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 20:55

Joe, that’s great!

i wonder August 9, 2010 at 17:26

In Ian Huntley’s case we have the same thing again, only this time the
circumstances around the fraud are astonishing. The style of evidence is the
same as before, but now it includes fireproof hair, watered-down petrol, and a
cool and calculating killer using an autopsy surgeon’s technique and scissors
to remove the clothes from not one but two dead bodies, including underwear
and shoes, purely in order to leave them in a place and a situation where the
police can link him to the crimes and use them as forensic evidence against
him in a prosecution. All of which is patently absurd. Despite our knowledge
of such killers, here we are required to believe that a stranger killer would
do all this purely to convenience the police.

The most remarkable thing about this case, however, is that if the police
did commit fraud with this evidence, then the fraud has supernatural powers of
clairvoyance behind it. This is because the police arrested Huntley for the
murders of the missing girls in the early hours of the 17th of August, at four
o’clock in the morning, and they had their forensic evidence for the
prosecution in his caretaker bin that night, but the public did not find the
two bodies until many hours later, at one o’clock the following afternoon. So
if Ian Huntley was fitted up, where did the police get the evidence from?

If Huntley had not fitted himself up himself, we need to investigate how
the police might have recovered that evidence before the public found the
bodies.

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 15:54

Actually I agree with you about the isolation point, Eleanor. prison is an
ugly place and full of ugly characters. As I’ms sure we all know, attacking a
man like Huntley (“a beast” I believe is the term,) is a mark of honour. So,
really full time isolation is the only “safe” option.
G the M

Eleanor August 9, 2010 at 15:33

I can’t see how it is humanly possible for The Prison Service to
permanently
protect people like Huntley without putting them in
isolation.

I find the desire of a banged up criminal to hurt people like Huntley, far
more worrying.

Woman on a
Raft August 9, 2010 at 15:20

Dear Judge Gildas

I’m freelancing for Ian Huntley as I work cheap and will do anything for
biscuits, but not those revolting lemon puffs.

My client accepts that HM Gvt did all that it reasonably could and moreover
is boracic lint. However, I have drawn it to his attention that the Prison
Officers Association might be good for a bob or two, especially since I have
been unable to trace the

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 15:52

I’m all for that, Counsel – just leave my fee of used fivers in a a brown
paper envelope, third pew from the left after Matins tomorrow!

woodsy42 August 9, 2010 at 14:23

Excellent posting.
But it occurs that if he can sue in this manner then
any victim of any crime anywhere in a governed community, ie local authority
area, council block of flats, should be similarly able to sue the police
and/or government for breach of care in failing to prevent the crime.
What
am I missing?

Sarbanes Oxley
August 9, 2010 at 14:02

How scholarly for you to know that I have what would now be called Scottish
roots!

Not really, I was born in a time before Gramscian Marxism took hold in the
education system and we were treated to a year zero.

This allows me to fulminate against revisionist ‘ historians’ who think
that the Anglo-Saxon settlement was largely due to the Romano Celts seeing an
Anglo Saxon riding past, and think Wow! lets change our language,place names,
burial practices and religion and look cool like him ! Just because it fits in
with modern multi-cultural theory.

Twere ever so, Victorian historians filtered history because they saw
themselves as the new Imperial Rome.

Pure Gramscian cultural Hegemony !

faulksd August 9, 2010 at 13:13

May I assume that the biscuits included in the deal are not Huntley &
Palmers…? Just a thought…

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 13:38

hee hee hee

Ed P August 9, 2010 at 13:53

I never knew Huntley, but I’m willing to provide the biscuits!
Ed
Palmer

charlie August 9, 2010 at 12:56

Unless we allow prisoners to protect themselves with guns, knives, baseball
bats etc or give them the ability to flee to another country when under threat
then if they get harmed we should cough up and compensate them.

Fascist Hippy
August 9, 2010 at 13:38

You can fuck right off!

Nick2 August 10, 2010 at 09:41

The (stated) aims of imprisonment are to protect the public (by
detaining law-breakers) and to punish the prisoners by denying them
liberty and certain freedoms of action.

Judging by the baying about Huntley’s injuries/crimes, many commenters
(not specifically here) believe that injuries meted out by the other
convicts are an expected, justifiable or (on some blogs) even necessary
part of the prison experience.

Huntley was a child killer. He needs to be locked up to protect the
public. Why are his ‘informal’ punishments in prison celebrated by so
many? I don’t particularly like the idea of giving him lots of money for
compensation, but the Prison Service DOES have a duty of care over its
prisoners. Even the Army has a limited duty of care over its soldiers,
whether they volunteered were or drafted.

If the Prison Service says that with current staffing levels and the
obsolete Victorian gaols it’s impossible to monitor, let alone protect its
inmates, then (Kenneth Clarke notwithstanding) that’s an argument for more
modern prisons. I still believe in ‘give gaol a chance’, including
building more prisons, but if sentencing someone to prison effectively
means incarceration with torture/death by the hands of fellow inmates,
then it’s going to be harder to get gaol sentences, or (maybe) even guilty
verdicts.

Richard B August
9, 2010 at 11:54

Good spot.

Sarbanes Oxley
August 9, 2010 at 11:50

Sir- you are patently not an unworldy monk fleeing from Strathclyde to
Brittany ! And you are threatening the whole basis of the Legal system vis a
vis the State, that no matter who wins the taxpayer loses.

Keep it simple- apply the same rules to prisoners as to citizens. No Legal
Aid for Citizens therefore none for prisoners- therefore no access to Justice.
If all of these organisations/silks wish to put up the funds to fight the case
and be liable for the costs of failure- go for it.

Convicts should not receive enhanced civil rights and entitlements than the
man in the street. Just offer Huntley a lifetime of solitary as an
alternative. Job done.

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 12:07

Dear SO
How scholarly for you to know that I have what would now be
called Scottish roots!
Another way of doing it would be the so called
Conditional Fee/No Win No Fee arrangement – but there are problems with that
too at the moment.
Better to have a helpful judge. Me!
Gildas the
Monk

Indyanhat August
9, 2010 at 11:49

Your LordGildasship
Surely the most condign part of this case revolves
around the fact that the appelant plays a significant contributory role in
this unfortunate unsuccessful attempt on his life, in that had he not (if I
may list and then explain Your Gildasship)
1. Abducted, attacked, molested
and murdered two little girls
2. Been apprehended,tried and sentenced for
said abduction,attack,molestation and murder of two little girls
3. Caused
himself to be locked up in a government facility filled with violent criminals
who all hate ‘nonces’ especially ‘nonces’ that abduct,attack,molest and murder
little children for their own gratification.
4. Been a stupid murderously
inclined ‘nonce, who abducted, attacked,molested and murdered two little
girls
5. Didn’t do the decent thing by commiting suicide at the very first
opportunity

Your Gildasship, it ,I think, needs little further explanation but it must
be said in defence of the Prison authority, that He was excluded from the
general prison population precisely because of fears for his safety while
serving his sentence, and no blame can be atatched to them for failing to keep
him in safety as it is well known that violent criminals who are locked up for
large parts of their’time’ dwell deeply into their percieved problems and
responsibilities to the public at large and defenceless children in
particular, and some of them would spend inordinate amounts of their ‘free’
‘time’ in planning ways to make sure that a positive message was sent to ALL
abducting,attacking,molesting and murderously inclined ‘nonces’ in the outside
world that their crimes will not go unpunished (on the reasoning that whilst
inside they cannot themselves protect their own loved ones and
children).
Therefore your Gildasship it is blatantly obvious that had he
not contributed so significantly to his own position then he would be a safe
man today and not incarcerated with ‘decent’ criminals!
I respectfully
submit that your court should therefore find that there is no case to answer
for anyone save himself!

Gildas August 9, 2010 at 12:03

Dear Mr Indianhat
I quite see the point that you make. It depends how
you want to develop it. To take my flippant head off just for a while, is it
right that the state, having imprisoned someone, can do what it wants or
owes no duty of care? There was a case a couple of years ago in which an
young Asian man was put in a cell with a psychotic racists – and beaten to
death. There was some suggestion at the time that the guards knew what they
were doing and wanted to some some sport. That, I think, is
unacceptable.
On the other hand, I am aware that Mr H may well be said to
be “the author of his own misfortunes, so to speak”.
I merely seek to
strike a balance, and have a pop at the lawyers!
Gildas the Monk

Eleanor August 9, 2010 at 10:48

Why can’t Huntley just sue the person who attacked him?

He hasn’t got any money? Oh Dear. Tough. Huntley will have to get attacked
by a batter class of person next time.

PT Barnum August 9, 2010 at 11:35

Yippee – I spy parapraxis and claim my

Eleanor August 9, 2010 at 15:25

And what makes you think I didn’t do it on purpose?

I didn’t actually. But only because I’m not as clever as some posters
here.
But I would have done if I’d thought of it.

Catosays August 9,
2010 at 10:45

Excellent!