Feeding Time at the Legal Zoo.
It started with a lie; a false allegation; a mendacity, a calumny, a canard. However you dress it up, it simply wasn’t true.
40 year-old Georgina Ray decided that the only possible reason as to why God should have chosen to burden her passage through life with the appearance of a bleached and careworn Yorkshire miner/nightclub bouncer with a broken nose, was that Jimmy Savile was indeed her Father.
Sadly for Georgina, it transpired that her appearance was merely God’s warped sense of humour, and nothing to do with Jimmy Savile. However, Georgina’s understandable belief that genetics might be responsible for her woes was enough to stay the hand of Jimmy Savile’s executors from handing over the £4.3 million that he had left to a selection of charities – ironically including at least one that specialised in providing support for victims of abuse.
Savile’s family, already beset by a million wild theories merrily flaunted in the media that he had been responsible for every unsolved crime since Jack the Ripper, were understandably in two minds about agreeing to hand over his DNA for forensic testing. DNA results can be unclear – what if they were merely making the situation worse? In the event, they did hand over his DNA – and the Georgina Ray claim was shown to be false. Savile’s DNA was checked against a host of heinous murders, robberies, rapes, child abductions, crop circles, missing aircraft, alien sightings, and lost elections and to the great disappointment of the media, it was shown that he was responsible for none of them.
However, whilst that false claim was investigated, the firm of Slater & Gordon were happy to announce that they had ‘hundreds’ of other plaintive plaintiffs queuing up to take their shot at the estate. A policeman stood on the steps outside the NSPCC offices to claim that Savile ‘spent every waking minute of the day’ planning further paedophilic adventures. Liz Dux stood with open arms ready to welcome those for whom a share of the monies intended for charity was the only thing that could put right the wrong that had been done to them. The sort of money that could buy you a south coast seaside caravan to wipe away the memories of the abuse you said you suffered at the hands of Savile in, er, a south coast seaside caravan.
Slater & Gordon’s share price soared as investors calculated the value of the ‘work in progress’ – the value of acting for the ‘thousands’ that were now beating a path to the media claiming to have been abused by Savile. Other firms of solicitors happily accepted Slater & Gordon shares in return for their business assets, only too willing to give up a lifetime’s hard work in return for a share of these fabled profits.
By the time of the first court case for lawyers to squabble over the estate, it had already been whittled down to £3.6 million. £700,000 had mysteriously disappeared in ‘expenses’. Those expenses had nothing to do with compensation for any claimants, nor with payments to any charities; they had vanished in the course of some perfectly legal transaction between the Executors – Nat West Bank and Osborne Clarke, the solicitors they had hired to ‘advise’ them. It would presumably have included the £70,000 expended on Savile’s funeral – as befitted a wealthy man lauded by the nation for his charitable fund raising.
Soon the claimants, none of who had spoken up before, were claiming that this sum ‘deprived them of possible compensation’. Fortunately there is an ancient piece of medieval law which allows ‘for the coffin, ringing the bell, and the fees of the parson, clerk and bearers; but not for the pall or ornaments.’
One of the ornaments on the grave turned out to have been placed there by a ‘lady’ related to Savile, whose own children claimed that she hadn’t met him until some 30 years after she claimed he had abused her…
Neither Nat West nor Osborne Clarke was prepared to discuss the matter with the ‘beneficiaries’ – the trustees of the charities.
Since Nat West made a statement on Thursday, no doubt after a firm prod from their public relations advisors, that they would not, had not, taken any fees from the Savile estate for acting as executors, that leaves the finger pointing at Osborne Clarke as being the recipients of a no doubt totally justifiable 16% of the available ‘trough’. They had only just got started…
I say ‘no doubt totally justifiable’ because in fairness (and in secrecy) Osborne Clarke have been dragged kicking and screaming into the world of ‘scrutinising claims’. Whilst it might have appeared to the outside world that they were prepared to hand out money from the estate to anybody, anywhere, on production of a wild and sufficiently lurid allegation, they did agree to use a wide circle of qualified individuals – ie those who were actually there at the times of alleged assaults, as opposed to keyboard warriors – to determine which claims could not possibly be true.
It’s not lipstick you see on my face; Ms Raccoon’s lips have been hermetically sealed with oxblood legal sealing wax, stamped with the mark of what became a number of lawyers acting for claimants.
Of the 200 or so people bringing claims against Savile’s estate, more than 170 are represented by the law firm Slater and Gordon.
Justice Sales, at one hearing said:
I emphasised to all parties the importance of trying to minimise the costs of resolution of disputes in respect of the various claims, so as to avoid what counsel had described as ‘a feeding frenzy for the lawyers’ and to preserve as much of the money in the estate as possible to meet the claims of those with entitlements in respect of it.
Feeding frenzy was an apt description of what was occurring. At one hearing there were no less than 17 barristers and juniors present, representing the BBC, the NHS, the claimants via 10 different firms of PI lawyers, and lastly, the trustees, fighting for the money that should have gone to charity.
I value the roof over my head, so sadly I cannot tell you which of the weirdly imaginative claims have bit the dust along the way. I have had to learn the art of keeping quiet even when blog posts that would have written themselves have arrived on my doorstep. Grrr!
I have had to keep quiet since last Thursday too; Up until then, all the dealings between the lawyers for the claimants, and the lawyers for the Nat West have been conducted under a cloak of total secrecy. On Wednesday, the Trustees for the Savile Charity received an e-mail from Mr Justice Warren indicating that it would be ‘helpful’ if they could attend the final hearing on Thursday. This was a new development – they have been barred from previous hearing as ‘having no standing’. They were assured that ‘this’ hearing would be public. I can’t possibly imagine how this information reached the ears of James Gillespie on the Sunday Times, some mysterious alchemy no doubt.
It meant that after some argy-bargy between barristers and the judge, it was ruled that he could remain. Justice must be seen to be open above all…
So, we now have his excellent report in today’s Sunday Times detailing the expenses incurred by the ‘legal feeding frenzy‘. I commend it to you. If you don’t happen to have a copy of the Sunday Times, I shall spell it out for you…
The hearing on Thursday – lasting a matter of two hours, cost £61,000.
The estate has now been whittled down to £2,042,000 from £4,300,000.
Osborne Clarke have received £1,800,000.
Only 78 cases remain from the ‘hundreds of abused victims’ – the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim. They said they were in ‘x’ spot in ‘y’ year when ‘z’ occurred at the hands of Jimmy Savile and there is no evidence to show that either Savile was elsewhere, or the claimant hadn’t been born yet, or the premises didn’t exist at that time, or any of the other myriad ways in which claims have been dismissed.
The lawyers, the ten different firms representing these ‘can’t be disproved’ claims will share £689,000. A poke in the eye with a sharp stick for those whose share price is dependant on a healthy ‘work in progress’ estimate….
The 78 ‘victims of alleged abuse’ will receive an average £13,000.
The total legal bill of £2,500,000 is more than double the combined £1,033,000 shared out amongst the claimants. All 78 of them.
That leaves just £141,000. No, that won’t be going to Help the Heroes, or abuse charities, or any of the other causes Savile fundraised for.
It will be split between the BBC, NHS and Barnardos to defray their legal expenses. Less than 50,000 grand a piece.
One fraudulent claim – Georgina Ray’s – and over £3 million quid goes up in legal smoke…
- right_writes
July 24, 2016 at 10:11 am -
And for years we were led to believe that the “unions’” desire for a “closed shop” was something alien.
Here is that closed shop operating in all its terrible beauty, it has been merrily doing this since the days of Charles Dickens.
Brexit… means er… Brexit.
- Dr Evil
July 24, 2016 at 11:01 am -
Lawyers are disgusting troughers. They would be curbed if there weren’t so many in the House of Commons and House of Lords.
- penseivat
July 24, 2016 at 11:27 am -
What do you have if the lawyers of Slater and Gordon are stood neck deep in sand? Not enough sand!
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 24, 2016 at 11:30 am -
the 78 are merely those where no one could disprove the claim
I always thought that in English Not-So-Civil Law that The Claimant/Allegator has to prove or rather ‘show on the balance of probabilities’ that his claim is righteous, not the person/estate being claimed against? Why would the Estate of JS, or the Lawyers acting for it, need to ‘disprove’ any claim? Or have I misunderstood what I thought was a basic corner stone of our legal system…always possible as until I started reading here I thought ‘Torts’ were German cakes?
If that sealing wax doesn’t prevent you, can you say if you have knowledge of one single claim that appears to be true?
- Lisboeta
July 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm -
And the 78 claims, all evidence-less (should I insert ‘allegedly’ here?) won’t just benefit the canny claimants who hit on a set of circumstances that could not be definitively disproved. Even worse, the rabble-rousers will now be able to point to “78 irrefutable claims against Savile”.
All in all, a disgusting, underhand, money-grubbing, travesty of justice. Oh, and if Georgina Ray had had, let’s say, brown hair, would anyone have seen any familial likeness? Nay, the eyes don’t have it.
- Mrs Grimble
July 24, 2016 at 12:53 pm -
“and if Georgina Ray had had, let’s say, brown hair, would anyone have seen any familial likeness?”
Funny enough, brown *was* Savile’s natural hair colour – he really was a ‘bleached blonde’.- Lisboeta
July 24, 2016 at 4:57 pm -
Oops! I hadn’t realised that.
- Lisboeta
- Mrs Grimble
- Bandini
July 24, 2016 at 12:34 pm -
Aaargh, I was looking forward to a day far, far away from the keyboard but fury compels me to angrily hammer this out:
The first claimant to appear on television – even before the transmission of the programme responsible for so much madness – was the ‘Queen of the Caravan’, Dee Coles. Of course it ‘wasn’t about the money’ & she really ‘didn’t want to be there’ but after becoming a public endorser of Slater & Gordon (even accompanying Liz Dux to the theatre to see a play about Jimmy Savile, speaking about it at length in yet another round of media interviews) she had a change of heart & was recently seen to be celebrating the judgement going in her favour – bingo!
She soon overcame her ‘reluctance’ to speak about Savile in the media too: endless interviews in newspapers national and local, television & radio. Despite her accusations having absolutely nothing to do with the BBC (the ‘attack’ took place in Jersey) it was to Dee Coles that ‘Woman’s Hour’ turned to discuss the Dame Janet Smith Review. (And it wasn’t the first time Dee Coles had appeared on the same show talking about Savile.)
The good thing about having a ‘talker’ is that if they are ‘misremembering’ they are likely to trip themselves up sooner or later. For this reason I started to pay a fair amount of attention to her utterances – as did others at a couple of blogs (Moor Larkin’s and, er, that ‘other one’).
I have a bit of a fuzzy head this morning & a beast of a dog is waiting to be taken for a walk, so I’ll be quick(ish):
– the recent BBC documentary from ‘award winning journalist’ Olly Lambert – ‘Abused’ – once again featured Coles. Rather stupidly they allowed us to catch a glimpse of the original email sent to ITN News (and discussed by Lucy Manning). The ‘attack’ took place when Coles was 15.
– Lucy Manning (now ‘promoted’ to the BBC) made heart-rending interviews with Coles who had somehow lost a year along the way and was now 14. (There was much confusion over this rather important point, with local ITV news saying she had been 15 while national ITV claimed she was 14, despite using the exact same footage.)
– Ordinarily the ‘vagueness’ over the age might be excused but the claimant had the good fortune to have in her possession a series of three photographs which showed her with Savile in the moments leading up to the ‘attack’. A fantastic aide memoire.
– Thanks to the media onslaught we learned of the devasting results of Savile’s simultaneous sexual assault of two 14 [sic] year olds: Coles dropped out of school at FOURTEEN and descended into crime, drink and drugs as a direct result of Jimmy Savile.
– The photographs (and other material) suggests that she can not have been 14 and that the ‘attack’ took place in 1972 and not 1971 as claimed. If she wasn’t 14 she can hardly blame Savile for ending her schooling – but that is exactly what she does.
– Odd-ball Olly Lambert made a series of media appearances to support his documentary in which Coles figured so heavily; she had been so damaged by Savile that a journey on a bus could provoke vomiting & for this reason flights were absolutely out of the question, he said. Olly Lambert will be relieved, I am sure, to see that Coles has now managed to overcome this 40+ year problem! How he kept a straight face while recounting this nonsense is anyone’s guess. A well travelled gal…
– Thanks to the eagle-eyes of commentators we also see that the third photo – supposedly taken just before being ‘attacked’ by the shirtless Savile – was actually taken quite some time after the first two pics, or perhaps after the campervan had been moved (or both). The story falls down at every turn.
http://es.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10qkjfo&s=9#.V5SkThXhDIU– God, I have no time and no stomach. There is so much more to be said about this load of old rubbish but what’s the point if it’s one of the 78 “where no one could disprove the claim”? They could easily have disproved this one and in doing so they would have made a lot of people look very bad: Manning, Lambert, Dux, ITV, BBC, every ‘paper in the land, etc..
Friend: So we’re not sure yet how ‘massive’ the party is gonna be!!!!
Coles: exactly ! [GRINNING FACE] - Ted Treen
July 24, 2016 at 3:10 pm -
I bet the Great Train Robbers were kicking themselves for not becoming solicitors:- all the proceeds but not the hassle of doing time…
- Carol42
July 24, 2016 at 5:59 pm -
This makes me so angry I can’t even think of a good comment! How do these people live with themselves lying and depriving charities of what was rightfully their? It would have helped if even one case was believable but looks like there wasn’t even that.
- The Blocked Dwarf
July 24, 2016 at 6:46 pm -
Don’t get mad, get even!
A nasty malicious person might surmise that the terrible, life changing, damage inflicted by JS on his VICTIMS would mean that a large percentage of those 78 claimants are in receipt of Benefits (Income Support/ESA/DLA). A nasty malicious person with access to those Allegators’ names and addresses might , if they were devoid of any sympathy for the SUFFERING of Savile’s victims and truly evil, might anonymously contact the Compliancy Department of the DWP.
As far as I know that £13K has to be declared and if it isn’t then it is Benefit Fraud-which we are constantly told is a CRIME (thank you Herr Dominic von Kleinholz!). I doubt very much if those Savile Survivors realise that not only do they have to declare their compo payment but that if that payment leaves them with capital of more than £6k then they will have their benefits adjusted accordingly. (for ‘adjusted’ read ‘cut by £1 for every £250 over 6K).
Like I said, only someone who was truly despicable might consider hurting abuse survivors in such a way. Heaven forfend that anyone here might stoop so low *shudders*
- Mrs Grimble
July 25, 2016 at 10:32 am -
You’re laregely correct, BD. If you have capital above £6K, your non-NI related benefits are reduced; capital above £16K renders you ineligible.
I know a woman who was claiming disability allowance for a (gwenuine) back problem; she got married to a man who not only had a comfortable private pension but also £100K+ from his share of a house sale. She carried on claiming nevertheless and actually complained to everybody when the DWP found out about it! (No, it wasn’t me that snitched; but I bought a nice bottle of wine for somebody…) Amazingly, she then declared her intention to get their savings down to a level when she can start claiming again and is now blazing through hubby’s money with expensive house refurbishments, new cars and the like. I hope nobody tells her that the DWP will want to see all the receipts…..
- Mrs Grimble
- The Blocked Dwarf
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 8:12 pm -
For comparison purposes, it might be interesting to examine Ireland’s Redress Board figures:
One abuse survivor claimed that survivors who were prepared to go to court actually did a lot better in terms of compensation.
- Bandini
July 24, 2016 at 9:03 pm -
“They want to be taken seriously, they are not interested in the financial compensation at all…” – Liz Dux 12th October 2012
Be that as it may, there were some top-tips on how to boost the winnings if anyone WAS interested in the financial compensation (which was obviously no one at all):
“She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives to hundreds of thousands if their lives had been wrecked, for instance if they had been unable to have a career or form relationships.”
(The S&G cheerleader was unfortunate enough to meet both of these criteria: a future career as a teacher ruined & an inability to form ‘intimate’ relationships.)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court
- Bandini
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 9:21 pm -
As a non-CSA survivor, who can I sue for my alcoholism, depression, and anxiety? (all factors probably linked, in a kind of re-inforcing cycle). Ireland has no NHS, so I do even get my doctor’s appointments or prescription SSRI’s for free.
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 9:23 pm -
^ typo above – should have read “do NOT even get….”
- tdf
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 9:22 pm -
Re the Liz Dux quote: “She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives to hundreds of thousands if their lives had been wrecked, for instance if they had been unable to have a career or form relationships.”
I don’t personally have a problem with this, on principle, the issue is how much is left after legal fees are paid out of the pot. It is often less than people seem to think.
- Bandini
July 24, 2016 at 9:50 pm -
The problem is that there is a financial imperative to lie. Lawyer to client:
“We are interested in taking on your case. If you feel that you managed to move on with your life after the brief incident you could expect to receive a few thousand pounds; if you feel that the brief incident impacted on your later career or had a negative influence on future relationships then you could be entitled to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do you feel that the brief incident could be said to have impacted on your future career or had a negative influence on future relationships? As I said, this would greatly increase any compensation payout. Take your time…”
An adult woman who was ‘attacked’ live on TOTP (a hand up the skirt she claimed, despite wearing trousers…) would like us to believe that this fleeting moment caused her divorce many years later! It’s a common theme. And remember that the clarion call for compo claimants to come forward was already likely to attract chancers & grifters sat at home watching the daytime telly – having caught the last few minutes of Jeremy Kyle the This Moaning coach is filling up with Dux and her ilk, and you fancy a holiday. Hey! Why not make it a new home? Take your time…
- Mrs Grimble
July 25, 2016 at 9:53 am -
“She said compensation could range from a few thousand pounds for someone who suffered a minor assault and got on with their lives …”
Really? So have3 you got a contact number for S&G? I want to claim for at least three dozen minor sexual assaults on me between 1966 and 1972; yes, I’ve put it all behind me and go on with my life, but dammit, if there’s cold hard cash to be got out of it…..
- Bandini
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 9:54 pm -
“An adult woman who was ‘attacked’ live on TOTP (a hand up the skirt she claimed, despite wearing trousers…) would like us to believe that this fleeting moment caused her divorce many years later!”
It would certainly seem a stretch if she claimed that.
But I note you put attacked in inverted commas. As I keep pointing out to the sceptics, if he was brazen enough to grope girls on live tv (granted, not offenses on the more serious end, but still offenses, at least technically, surely?) , is it entirely inconceivable that he did a lot worse off camera?
- Bandini
July 24, 2016 at 10:31 pm -
I put the word in inverted commas as I do not believe it merits the word ‘attacked’. What did that old fusspot Smith make of it?
“Although B8 does not show any visible sign of distress, it is clear that Savile is doing something to her and that he thinks it is funny… …This incident can be seen on video. We can see B8 jumping about in a most uncomfortable way, although she kept a smile on her face.”
No visible sign of distress, kept a smile on her face, beamed directly into millions upon millions of homes. What does Smith conclude?
“Savile sexually assaulted B8 on camera during a recording of Top of the Pops. She told a BBC employee what had happened.”
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 10:42 pm -
@Bandini
Smith’s conclusion seems entirely reasonable to me in this case.
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 10:46 pm -
Or, to elaborate, Smith’s conclusion seems reasonable, but I don’t know how she goes from ‘although B8 does not show any visible sign of distress’ to ‘we can see B8 jumping around in a most uncomfortable way’ in the same sentence.
I thought when I looked at that clip B8 did look uncomfortable and distressed, but was doing her best to hide it from the cameras and not create a fuss, given it was a live show.
- Bandini
July 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm -
Different sentences, TDF. Wouldn’t want to be accused of ‘quote manipulation’. Check the full report if you want full context.
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 11:09 pm -
^ Will do.
- tdf
- Bandini
- tdf
- tdf
- Bandini
- tdf
July 24, 2016 at 10:15 pm -
“The fact that the claims were reduced to 78 – out of the, what was it, 450 that Spindler was claiming, tells you that a lot of claims were just hot air, and that was without the defendant uttering a single word in his defence.”
It tells us that some claims did not pass whatever tests were required. That does not, in itself, mean that the other claims were hot air. It may mean anything from that all the other claims were hot air, to that none of them were hot air, but that they just didn’t provide enough evidence to go forward for the civil compensation claims.
“The only defence that the man has had, has come from work colleagues saying things like – ‘but that building wasn’t built until ten years later, and Savile never appeared in it’. ”
Not entirely correct, there are several blogs that have also offered defences.
- Ho Hum
July 25, 2016 at 1:05 am -
Not been able to read the ST article, or do more than really just skim through the comments here but I’m a bit puzzled that there seems to be some perception in the comments that the original 450 was reduced to 78 on the basis of the majority being rejected
I thought that the 78 was the number left at Thursday, where no one could either say ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to whether or not anything had been done that merited payment as there was nothing available to support either conclusion
That’s not the same as saying that all of the other 372 were rejected. I thought that previous reports had said that some of those were rejected, and others accepted, and paid on the tariffs agreed at the outset. If true, then one assumes that what was left by Thursday would still had to have been sufficient to meet the remaining 78 at the same rate, should that have been the final determination, but the figures mentioned above seen a long way short on what my memory says the initial ones were. Does anyone have an overall tally that can be properly vouched for??
I appreciate that both my memory may be playing tricks, and that I haven’t necessarily seen all today’s detail, but the general assumption that by Thursday only 78 claims remained unrejected, and that there was no evidence for or against any of those either, seems a bit tenuous
- Bandini
July 25, 2016 at 12:01 pm -
I won’t post the full article, Ho Hum, but someone who did was none other than Mark Williams-Thomas (feigning outrage at the lawyers taking the lion’s share).
Those 78 cases were of “abuse made solely against the estate (without a joint defendant such as the NHS or BBC”.
The total number is 166 sharing a pot of £2,396,636, figures representing “all accepted claims made against the estate, NHS, BBC, Barnado’s, and the mental health charity MIND – not those solely against the estate.”
- Bandini
- Bandini
July 25, 2016 at 2:51 pm -
A decent piece in the Mail from Dominic Lawson which weaves together the tale of the recently exonerated former-fireman (including the extraordinary letter sent by his accuser: “At 6 o’clock tonight I am going to the police station to report what went on and at 7 to the national papers. I think it is time you and me had a chat”), Op Midland, the Goddard Inquiry (“only beginning the first of its preliminary hearings this week … expected to postpone by six months… latest delay seems to have been caused in part by the fact that the Janner family lawyers have produced evidence that his accusers have numerous convictions, including for fraud, sexual offences and obtaining property by deception”) and, inevitably, Jimmy Savile:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3706229/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Hero-fireman-jailed-fantasist-s-lies-never-ending-farce-sex-abuse-witch-hunt.html - Alexander Baron
July 25, 2016 at 6:05 pm -
Just a thought but would it be possible for say Moor Larkin to get his hands on the witness statements of a few of these victims? I don’t think the court would allow this but the estate perhaps?
- Moor Larkin
July 25, 2016 at 7:23 pm -
Not sure we need such illegal activity. One of the most media-documented cases seems to have been paid out. (check out rabbitaway’s current blogpost). And we all have seen the fate of Freddie Starr in the burning brightness of recent English justice, so I cannot see much more needs to be demonstrated. This is Der Process. Resistance is futile.
- Moor Larkin
- Fat Steve
July 26, 2016 at 11:12 am -
Ho! Ho! Ho! Anna
Just back from a break and nice to see one small corner of Norfolk continues with its Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Sanity from an increasingly crack pot country .
So much in your post …..why does your comment about legal costs seem ad idem to Sir Philip Green’s alledged financial ‘rape’ of BHS which was the main news I heard from the ‘Mother Country’ when abroad? Why do legal outcomes seem such a paradox to Just (as in Justice ) outcomes ? (Answers please in legible manuscript on A4 paper of no more than 2000 words)
Still no sure of the magnitude of Savile’s offending but the multitude appears to be diminishing despite what appears to be the rather low threshold required to get home and dry ……is it I wonder that marvellous overarching legal principle of looking at everything ‘commercially’ to save costs that makes any allegation save the most egregiously dishonest pass muster? ….though of course a fair chunk of costs are incurred to reach that such a ‘legal’ conclusion.
But in legal work the Devil (or should that be the Delight ?) is in the detail and just such a hoot to see some of the preliminary detail about Goddard (not just your earlier post on one of her assistants) but the link to the Mail on Line which comments (I do hope accurately)
Unfortunately, she is not so highly regarded in her own country as she obviously is by the British Home Office. In an unofficial recent survey of New Zealand’s 63 judges, Goddard came in . . . 63rd.
Those responsible for the judicial survey cited a trial over which she had presided, which was condemned by five law lords from our own judicial committee of the Privy Council with these words: ‘It is impossible to imagine a clearer example of a trial that has gone off the rails.’
Ho! Ho! Ho! I chuckle once again ….a safe pair of hands in my lifetime was originally a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) who had gone to the ‘right school’ …..then some Apparatchik who attended a left leaning University that gave him adequate patination of being able to undertand the concerns of every day folk ……now its the likes of Goddard ……flown in almost exactly from the other side of the globe with the credentials essential to ascertain the ‘truth’ or what passes for it nowadays.
If the report in the Mail on Line is correct I imagine her fellow members of the Judiciary in New Zealand opining that that was an excellent ‘export deal’ …..will Brexit provide more opportunities?- The Blocked Dwarf
July 26, 2016 at 11:32 am -
Hmmm ‘sanity’ and ‘Norfolk’, two words not normally happy bedfellows in the same sentence.
- The Blocked Dwarf
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }