Mr Justice Eady is in the news because of Paul Dacre's attack on his alleged monopoly of newspaper privacy cases; in particular, his recent decision in favour of Max Mosley.
Mr Dacre (editor of The Daily Mail - hardly a newspaper I would normally wish to be associated with) accused Mr Justice Eady of "singlehandedly using human rights laws to curb the press’s freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places."
I will post about this but that is not for today.
In the course of researching such a post, I came across the extraordinary decision of his in Lillie & Another v Newcastle. The judgment is so long that it had to be published in two parts but you can access the second part from the first.
It is a masterly judgment and concerns a travesty of justice inflicted on two nursery school workers by Newcastle City Council who decided that they were guilty of sexual abuse involving 2-3 year olds. To avoid the serious misreporting originally involved, there was also at least one four year old.
The title link leads to an overall summary of the case which seems reasonably accurate. There seem to be dodgy adverts on the site, however. In case you need telling, you are not the 999,999th visitor to anywhere ever at all - alright, there is, as roughly as makes no difference, a one in a million chance that you are. So do not click on anything that tells you that you are because they do not care if you are or are not. Think about it: if their page was only viewed by one in a million people who visited a third party site, why would they bother? Their total click throughs would be a number less than one. (NB: for US visitors people who click on these sites are called "mugs" in the UK or, possibly, in US terminology, "marks").
The case is also notable for the level of criticism directed at Professor William Friedrich (author of Psychological Evaluation of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families to distinguish him from any other Professors of the same name).
No comments:
Post a Comment