Removal of John Nyombi to Uganda was Unlawful

Jaqui Smith, among her other troubles, has been found to have unlawfully removed John Nyombi to Uganda and he has suffered exactly the persecution that was predicted. She has also been ordered to get him back. That may already have happened since the decision was made on 28th February although only published today.

John Nyombi is gay and there was a widespread campaign on the internet and elsewhere to prevent his being deported to Uganda where homosexuality is illegal and can carry a life sentence, in reality a death sentence.

Ironically, it seems to have been the campaign that caused Smith's minion Alan Kittle to decide to deport Nyombi in an unlawful manner and without notice.

"Thus, so far as this breach is concerned, I am satisfied that the actions of the officers of the Border Agency were deliberate. They were deliberately calculated to avoid any complication which could arise from removal being publicly known. It was a deliberate decision that he should not be told the flight details. They deliberately misled him in order to prevent him making any contact with the Refugee Legal Centre when it might have been possible for him to do so. Then later when it was impossible for him to do that, he nonetheless requested it, and they flatly refused to allow him to do it. They took these steps to restrain him, and to restrict the opportunity he might have, to cause difficulty which could complicate their intention to remove him."

The manner of removal was absolutely disgraceful and carried out by government paid thugs. Our government's paid thugs.

"On Thursday 18th September, security in Tinsley House came for me at around 4.30 pm. They confiscated by mobile phone and said that this was procedure. I was very worried and I asked them where I was going. They said to me, "we're taking you for an interview with an Immigration Officer." I remember directly asking them whether I was going be sent back to Uganda and they said, "no" and not to worry; it was only an interview.

"Because they said it was just for an interview I agreed to go with them. There were four guys and they kept saying, "we will bring you back." I remember them telling me that I should eat something, as I would not be back to Tinsley House for several hours. I was put in a van and we drove for just a short period of time and then stopped somewhere; I could not see where. The two men in the back with me where called Michael and Paul. Michael was quite nice and asked me a few questions. Paul told me to shut up when I tried to tell him I was worried. The other two men sat in the front and I don't know their names. One of the guys got out from the back with me and said he was going to get the Immigration Officer and wouldn't be long.

"When he returned he had bits of paper with him and it said, "Removal Directions". It did not specify a date or a time. This would have been at around 6.00 pm. I questioned the security men as they had promised I was going for an interview and to be honest they looked a bit confused too and said they thought I was seeing an Immigration Officer first.

"I asked if I could talk to a solicitor or a friend but they said this was not allowed. From there I was driven straight to the plane. I felt sick and stressed and was starting to cry. I couldn't believe that this was happening to me and no one even knew.

"The van stopped outside the plane for what felt like around 30 minutes and Paul and Michael stayed in the back with me. After 30 minutes or so I was told to get out of the van. When I refused all four men entered into the van to get me. I backed away and struggled and said, "I want to see an Immigration Officer" and asked again if I could call my solicitor. The security men said there was nothing they could do and I had to get on the plane.

"I did not fight them, I was just trying to resist leaving the van. All four of the security men pulled me outside of the van and I was handcuffed. I refused to stand up when I was outside so they lifted me off the ground and then pushed me back on to the ground and the man who had been driving the van punched me in the private parts to make me straighten my legs and then they tied my legs with a sort of belt like you find for a wheelchair. The other men who had sat in the front of the van was hovering his fist over my face and I was crying and asking him not to hit me. I remember there were people there loading things onto the plane and two policemen.

"All four men lifted me off the ground with my face facing upwards and on to the plane. I am afraid I don't recall exactly how they did it and where they were holding me, just that I could not see around me and I was being carried horizontally to the floor. I think that two were by my legs and two by my arms. I was crying because of where the driver had hit me and also the handcuffs hurt and I was trying to tell this. Everything happened so fast and I was in a bad way."

Unconvincing Hetty Baynes Loses Appeal

Ken Russell's ex-wife lost her claim for a bigger share of her mother's lesbian partner's estate before Mr Justice Lewison who found her an "unconvincing" witness and part of the stance she took "distasteful".

It is pretty clear from the case that that Hetty Baynes was a serial sponger so far as Mary Spencer Watson was concerned and some of her tactics not necessarily denoting the highest integrity. For instance:

"On 13th December 2005 Hetty went to see Mary at Dunshay Manor, at the suggestion of a friend, in order to encourage Mary to take responsibility for Hetty as a parent would. Having heard the evidence of Hetty and her friend, Lewison J had no doubt that Hetty tried to persuade Mary to change her will and "did so in forceful terms".

"By now Hetty had realised that her application for a large lump sum from Ken Russell would not succeed. She confronted Mary about her relationship with Margot, and Mary admitted that their relationship had been an intimate one. All the witnesses agreed that Mary was a very private person, who had never previously acknowledged her relationship with Margot; and to do so at this juncture must have been very difficult for her. Hetty herself said that Mary confessed to guilt and shame about the relationship. In her oral evidence, however, Hetty said that it was not her purpose to use the meeting to get Mary to pay her bills. It was, as she put it, about the "bigger picture"; although the canvas of the bigger picture seemed to be filled by her and Rex, and in particular her financial problems. What she wanted was for Mary to make her and Rex secure, by clearing her debts, buying her somewhere to live and giving them a solid base. She said to Mary that without anything coming from Ken she would be bankrupt and homeless; and asked Mary whether she would be happy with that. Without Mary's help, she said, they would not survive. These statements must have put considerable pressure on Mary and in my judgment they were designed to do so."

I wonder if Sears Tooth took this one on no-win-no-fee basis? If they did, then it is surprising that they did not appreciate how their client was going to come across.

If not, Ms Baynes must really be on her uppers now. I doubt, however, if anyone who reads the case (see title link) is going to feel much sympathy for her.

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?

My Daddy is a Lawyer & Other Lawyer Jokes

TWO LAWYERS

Today's joke of the day should be preserved:

My Daddy Is A Lawyer

While two families were waiting in line to see the Washington Monument, their two five-year-old boys were getting acquainted.

"My name is Joshua. What's yours?" asked the first boy.
"Adam," replied the second.
"My daddy is a doctor. What does your daddy do for a living?" asked Joshua.
Adam proudly replied, "My daddy is a lawyer."
"Honest?" asked Joshua.
"No, just the regular kind," replied Adam.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Godfather Lawyer

Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a lawyer?
A: An offer you can't understand.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Truck Driver, the Priest and the Lawyers

A truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he would see walking down the side of the road. Every time he would see a lawyer walking along the road, he would swerve to hit him, and there would be a loud "THUMP" and then he would swerve back onto the road. One day, he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.

He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"

"I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road," replied the priest.

"No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck." The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.

Suddenly the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him. But he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so at the last minute he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer. However, even though he was sure he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUMP". Not understanding where the noise came from, he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer."

"That's okay," replied the priest. "I got him with the door!"

------------------------------------------------------------------

Laboratory Lawyers

Why are laboratory scientists switching from rats to lawyers for their experiments?
1. Lawyers are more plentiful than rats;
2. The lab technicians don't get as attached to the lawyers,
3. There are some things a rat just won't do, and
4. This is one area where the animal rights activists won't get worked up over.


More another day.

The Mystery of the Missing Motive: Yusuf v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society

This case (see title link) is mundane except for the fact that there is no motive for the acts that got this pharmacist struck off the register.

Yusuf was found guilty of "the consistent, one might almost say systematic, alteration of prescription forms and the forging of doctors' signatures to authenticate the alterations." The Disciplinary Committee said that "his conduct involved dishonesty, abuse of trust, loss to the NHS and the signing of FP34C forms certifying that the drugs ordered on prescriptions had been supplied to patients, when [he] must have known that that was untrue." His conduct, they added, "amounted to fundamental breaches of the Code of Ethics."

Yet the Committee also accepted that there was no evidence of any financial or other benefit to Mr Yusuf from his misconduct. He was an employed pharmacist. The benefit of his fraud can only have accrued to the pharmacy itself.

It is difficult, in the light of those findings, to understand the why? of this case.
It is not common human experience for wrongdoers to commit crimes from which they never intend to derive any benefit.

We need Inspector Morse here. There would appear to be loose ends. You may wish to play detective so I suggest you read the case.

The Garlic Defence

An amusing story from Gary Slapper of The Times concerns the abandonment of criminal trials at Bristol Crown Court because the smell of garlic was spreading around the court building. Visit the title link.

This is a particularly stupid defence to run. The best it will get you is an adjournment.

If you are exposed as the garlic deployer's friend you will cast doubt on your credibility and may destroy any other available defence you have. But then, lots of criminals are stupid. That is why they are criminals.

On the other hand, some criminals are clever and never get caught. This just supports two cardinal principles that prosecutors and governments need to keep at the forefront of their minds. They are:

(1) Probability of detection rather than harsh sentencing is the primary deterrent.

(2) Confiscation of the proceeds of crime should be the primary punishment.

Therefore, focus on better policing (more intelligent, better qualified, properly funded) and increase the penalties for failing to satisfy a confiscation order; perhaps, discounting the retributive part of the sentence and applying a percentage uplift to the criminal gain.

The really interesting thing you will find in Gary Slapper's article is the exclusion of a barrister from court for wearing perfume. OK, it was the 60's.

The Bible in English Just Like Jesus Talked

I thought P J O'Rourke made the title up but I have found it, or something so similar that it makes no difference; except, that it is written by an agnostic who wasted part of his life doing it. Go on, you believe it all now. See the title link.

Ian Tomlinson: Murder Not Manslaughter?

In English law murder does not require an intent to kill. The following will also suffice:

(a) an intent to cause grievous bodily harm; or

(b) grievous bodily harm is the virtually certain consequence of the perpetrator's act.

The news that Ian Tomlinson died from internal bleeding seems to me to mean that investigation of the unknown police officer only for manslaughter is inadequate. A murder charge should not be ruled out at this stage.

TOPIC FOR DEBATE

Manslaughter would be an example of undercharging that would not be countenanced if the offender were not a police officer.

Margaret Haywood, The Brighton Sussex Hospital and Elder Abuse

Margaret Haywood went undercover for the BBC and secretly filmed neglect/abuse of elderly patients at the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, England.

After the film was broadcast, the trust responsible for the hospital admitted and apologised for "serious lapses in the quality of care".

I think we can take it that this was the most anodyne formula the trust's lawyers felt they could get away with.

The Times reports today that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has found that Ms Haywood had prioritised filming over her obligations as a nurse and had breached patient confidentiality.

In consequence, she has been struck off and cannot act as a nurse. That is, her career has been destroyed.

Oh, by the way, it is also reported that all of the patients (subsequent to the filming) waived confidentiality. I would too. If I was a vulnerable elderly person and was being maltreated but with no means of doing anything about it, I would positively want someone, anyone, to do something about it and by whatever means possible.

Ordinary mortals will find the decision to strike this nurse off the register inexplicable other than as a protective act of revenge and as a blatant attempt to discourage others from blowing the whistle on National Health Service malpractice.

She did a greater service to these patients than the hospital or any of their other doctors or nurses.

I hope Margaret Haywood takes this matter further. I am sure she has access to proper advice and I can think of many lawyers who would take this case on a no win no fee basis.

The decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, on the facts available in the public domain, is an utter disgrace and wholly against the public interest.

The Pot and the Kettle

Rachel Sylvester of The Times appears somewhat sinister if the title story really represents what she thinks.

Take a look!

She is doing exactly what she criticises others for doing.

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.

The Date of Your Death is a Random Number

6 teachers and three students died today, I heard on the radio as I awoke this morning. I might as well have heard that a tsunami had killed tens of thousands. Or that the Rwandans had massacred another million or two.

Barclays Tax Avoidance Horse Bolts, Then Judge Shuts Stable Door

NO HORSE HERE

Mr Justice Blake thinks that the documents Barclays does not want you to see are still sufficiently difficult to find that they have not yet lost all confidentiality. Well, I'm a slow typist and it took less than 60 seconds. Mind you, when you start trying to read them you wish you had not found them. They use an especially effective cryptogram. They are written in mind numbingly boring jargon so that only the most dedicated investigative reporters will stay awake long enough to penetrate to the heart of any wrongdoing the documents may reveal. I have not the patience. Of course, Barclays say that there is no wrongdoing to be found. Well, that explains why they woke the first judge at 2:30 am in the morning to try to suppress publication then.

4% of Universe Known; No-one At The Times Watches Star Trek Then

If you’re wondering what the LHC might do for you, how’s this: it might just find a whole quarter of the universe. The collider is hoping to create some particles of what physicists call “dark matter”, an enigma that is thought to make up roughly 25 per cent of the universe. Then there is the “dark energy”, a mysterious force that seems to be ripping space and time apart. In total, a whopping 96 per cent of the universe has gone AWOL. Unless, that is, we’ve got our maths all wrong. Watch this space.

So Michael Brooks of The Times writes. How silly. He probably borrowed it from a physics site such as top ten physics problems for stupid and lazy journalists but failed to register that no-one can tell us what percentage of the unknown we do not know.

Margaet Thatcher as Coriolanus

She would not do the tea rooms. The BBC's drama makes it clear that her downfall equated to the tragedy of Coriolanus.