Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Garrow's Law (or the confession of an ex-lecturer)



A confession is due. Not a confession relating to any recent allegations of a legal nature but one of utilising one's time usefully.

Many of you may have presumed that the writer of this blog is a profligate consumer of philosophical and historical tracts and partial to endless volumes of bedtime caselaw. There is a whisker of truth in this, the sort of whisker you might find floating on the delicately sculpted ivory of a Guinness pulled freshly at The Face is Altered on Kilburn High Road.

That vile contraption

Back to the confession. This writer is a television addict. It is simply irresistible. More so with a roaring log fire acting as sentry over a pair of toasted anti-feet frayers, guarding against the scythe-like talons of a grasping, crystalline pre-winter-winter. What isn't addictive is the cacophonous corporate coprophagia that blitzkrieg-like is the hallmark 'independent' television programming. Thus nightly, almost instinctively, one of the BBC channels is selected, very nearly depriving the uninvited potion-peddlars a single nanosecond to commit their aural sensory assault. Concomitantly, if commercial channels are selected, the malignancy of electronic hawking can be mitigated to an almost bearable degree with the liberal application of the electric cordless channel-changer.

Garrow's Law

With luck 'Strictly' - as it's affectionately deferred to by those who speak of it with a gravity usually reserved for royal funerals or paedophile rings (do they like their fungi-based counterparts grow on lawns in early Autumn) - failed to plaster itself all over the LCD screen. This programme has a particular mucousity and a fatality that will like a glue-sniffers favourite bag and the sole of a child's shoe, attach itself shit-like to that thing known as the 'national psyche'. Yet against all these odds, a "televisual feast" of the most Cribbenesque order manifested itself. The programme referred to m'lud is one Garrow's Law.

There is was a time when only the rich could afford legal counsel... 
William Garrow - responsible for the adversarial system and the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"... except for libel which is the other way round

Now in general, the only law that this writer has recourse to is that of a chap called Murphy. But like many raised on a lunchtime diet of Crown Court in the 1970s, is fairly partial to programmes that focus on the courtroom. For the general viewer, whose lifetime experience of the law is confined to paying a parking fine on the last possible day prior to having to cough up the full sum, they can catch a glimpse of the idealised and screen-friendly, be-wigged doer of all things customary and upholder of civil society and ultimately capitalist power relations. In one hour or so the legal machinery, with all its intricacies and triumphs, is laid bare for all to see. In reality the machinery is full of flaws and can be extraordinarily slow and of course spankingly expensive.

Corruption galore!

Of  late and of necessity, this writer has become partial to a bit of the more serious stuff; the cocaine of courtroom drama - Kavanagh QC. It's a John Thaw thing. Garrow's Law is a little different. This particular episode pressed all the right buttons: a protest, profligacy, a Charity, the change of a Charter, the authorship and distribution of alleged libels, special favours and disbursements for placemen, allegations of criminal libel made to cover gross abuses of power and frauds, the misspending of charitable monies, the lining of pockets of favoured Directors and Governors... it was quite a substantive list and it was dizzying. The series pits a young Johnny-come-lately 18th century barrister, with levelling ideals emblazoned on his robes, against a system weighted in the favour of the powers-that-be: a corrupt and nepotistic establishment and institutions. Say no more.

The Sweeny - had lots of boozing and gratuitous
violence... it also had it's bad points
How a complaint brought down opprobrium from above

For those of you who are already bored, it's worth persevering as Sunday's broadcast was interesting on several levels. Firstly, it highlighted the manner in which the establishment and leading establishment figures sought to connive and machinate in order to destroy Garrow. They despised him as both an outsider (due to his heritage) and because he threatened the status quo; a constant thorn in the side of 'business as usual'. Moreover, each episode is based on an historical case. Sunday night's episode centred on the real-life trial of one Captain Thomas Baillie who was the Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Hospital of Greenwich a retirement home for former sailors. The episode began with a demonstration by former seamen against the food and conditions in the home that was run as a charity. The trial centred on an allegation of libel against Baillie who had represented the seamen's grievances in their appalling condition. Now always one for a bit of reading, this writer decided to undertake a little investigative work and it would appear that the case of Captain Baillie, attributed to Garrow, was in fact defended by four lawyers including a young and junior Thomas Erskine.

The Courts - a weapon of the wealthy and powerful

Thomas Baillie was indicted on the basis of a libel he was said to have committed against several high profile figures of the day and of a particular institution through the dissemination of a "book": in reality a list of complaints. The Hospital was run specifically for disabled seamen. According to its Charter, no Landmen could be admitted. Baillie's duty with others was to "watch over the internal economy of this sacred charity" in order to ensure that "the ample revenues appropriated from this generous nation to their support, are not perverted or misappropriated."(1)


The grey-haired gentleman who dresses to the left
A vile libellor?

What was this libel? Baillie ventured in the words of Erskine  "to attack abuses..." What was interesting in the program and with a little delving was that Erskine used the platform of the courtroom to draw in the Earl of Sandwich (First Lord of the Admiralty) and publicised the fact that the changing of the Charter helped "to serve the base and worthless purposes of corruption..." which "introduced his prostituted freeholders of Huntingdon into places destined for the honest freeholders of the seas.." a beautiful metaphor for the disfigured and loyal seamen. Erskine went  further:

"... that these men (among whom are the prosecutors) are not only Landmen, in defiance of the Charter, and wholly dependent on the Admiralty in their views and situations, but, to the reproach of all order and government, are suffered to act as Directors and Officers of Greenwich, while they themselves hold subordinate offices, the control of which is the object of that direction;- and inferring from thence (as a general proposition) that men in such situations cannot, as human nature is constituted, act with that freedom and singleness which their duty requires, he justly attributes to these causes the grievances which his gallant brethren actually suffer..."(2)

It is clear from records that Baillie sought not the removal of the Governors but remedy for the poor seamen and to save "Greenwich Hospital from ruin." Say no more.

Words - weapons of mass instruction

It was the production of the 'book' that drew the ire of the Governors of the Hospital. Baillie saw this as a means in framing the complaints of the men. Erskine points out how the Prosecutors had sought to isolate passages from the entirety of the book to prosecute their case:

"If the Defendant be guilty for any crime at all, it be in writing This Book:  and the conclusion of his guilt or innocence must consequently depend on the scope and design of it, the general truth of it, and the necessity for writing it; and this conclusion can no otherwise be drawn than by taking the WHOLE of it together. Your Lordships will not shut your eyes, as these prosecutors expect, to the design and general truth of the book, and go entirely upon insulated passages culled out, and set heads and points in their wretched affidavits, without context, or even making an attempt to unriddle or explain their sense, or bearing on the subject; for, my Lord, they have altogether omitted to traverse the scandalous facts themselves..."(3)

What became clear as the trial progressed was the scale by which associates of the Governors including traders known to them in Huntingdon, enriched themselves at the cost of those who had bodily spent themselves in service to their country. For example, wards within the Hospital reserved for the use of aged and disabled seamen were converted into apartment for Directors and Clerks of Clerks.

Vindictiveness and recriminations

For those wishing to give evidence as to the validity of the issues raised by Baillie, they were "deprived of their places", "exposed to beggary and ruin".(4) Some withdrew their signed affidavits for fear of repercussions refusing to appear in court and give evidence. Yet some braver souls spoke out and provided  testimony to back Baillie's assertions. The case also raised the issue that the Charter had been altered and allowed 'Landmen' to be catered for. When a group of seamen campaigned to have them removed, one Charles Smith who signed an affidavit for the Court, was with his family ejected from the Hospital into penury, his wife expiring at the Hospital gates.

Baillie was to win against the odds. However, the First Lord of the Admiralty and his supporters ensured that Baillie would never again work in the Royal Navy. Justice served!

Say no more.



For those of a stiffer constitution, it is worth reading the preamble from the original speeches of the Honourable Thomas Erskine reproduced below:

THE SUBJECT.


CAPTAIN THOMAS Baillie, one of the oldest Captains in the British navy, having, in consideration of his age and services, been appointed Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Hospital for Superannuated Seamen at Greenwich, saw (or thought he suw) great abuses in the administration of the charity; and prompted, as he said, by compassion for the seamen, as well as by a sense of public duty, had endeavoured by various means to effectuate a reform.
      In pursuance of this object, he had at various times presented petitions and remonstrances to the Council of the Hospital, the Directors, and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and he had at last recourse to a printed appeal, addressed to the General Governors of the Hospital. These Governors consisted of all the great Officers of State, Privy Counsellors, Judges, Flag-Officers, & c.c.
     Some of the alleged grievances in this publication were, that the health and comfort of the seamen in the Hospital were sacrificed to lucrative and corrupt contracts, under which the clothing, provisions, and all sorts of necessaries and stores were deficient ; that the contractors themselves presided in the very offices, appointed by the charter for the control of contracts, where, in the character of counsellors, they were enabled to disniss all complaints, and carry on with impunity their oivn system of fraud and peculation.
       But the chief subject of complaint (the public notice of which, as Captain Baillie alleged, drew down upon him the resentment of the Board of Admiralty) teas, that Landmen were admitted into the offices and places in the Hospital, designed exclusively for Seamen, by the spirit, if not by the letter of the institution. To these landmen Captain Baillie imputed all the abuses he complained of, and he more than insinuated by his different petitions, and by the publication in question, that tliey were introduced tothese offices for their election services to the Earl of , as freeholders of Huntingdonshire.
     He alleged further, that he had appealed from lime to time to the Council of the Hospital, and to the Directors, without effect; and that he had been equally unsuccessful with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, during the presidency of the Earl of Sandwich ; that, in consequence of these failures, he resolved to attract the notice of the General Governors, and, as he thought them too numerous as a body, for a convenient examination in thefirst instance, and besides, had no means of assembling them, a statement of the facts through the medium of this Appeal, drawn up exclusively for their use, and distributed solely among the members of their body, appeared to him the most eligible mode of obtaining redress on the subject.
      In this composition, which teas written with great zeal and with some asperity, the names of the landmen, intruded into the offices for seamen, were enumerated; the contractors also were held forth and reprobated; and the First Lord of the Admiralty himself was not spared.
     On the circulation of the book becoming general, the Board of Admiralty suspended Captain Baillie from his office. And the different officers, contractors, & c. in the Hospital, who were animadverted upon, applied to the Court of King's Bench, in Trinity Term, 1778, and obtained a rule upon Captain Baillie to show cause in the Michaelmas Term following, why an information should not be exhibited against him for a libel. (5)


(1) The Speeches of Hon Thomas Erskine (Now Lord Erskine) When at the Bar on Subjects Connected with Liberty Of the Press and Against Constructive Treasons, collected by James Ridgeway, Vol I, London 1810, Publisher J Ridgeway pp 7-8
(2) Ibid pp8-9
(3) Pg16
(4)Pg21
(5) Available at Google books. Click here to access the online version.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 25 November 2010

The Ghost of Daniel Defoe

This would now seem to be taking on the proportions known only to the architect responsible for the drawing up of plans for a colossal ancient Mycenaean citadel situated around 90 kilometres south west of Athens around 3400 years ago. At this juncture it might be wise to highlight who exactly are the characters in the second act of this ongoing epic and as such this writer craves your indulgence...

Your Honour I pray your indulgence...
the libellous gentleman I refer to is that fucker over there!

Cast of Characters

The Accused

Dr Gary Paul Duke - The defendant (also known to his associates as the gentleman to the left with the grey hair)

The Claimant (as named in witness statements collectively known as the University of Salford)

Professor Martin Hall - The Vice Chancellor
Dr Adrian Graves - The Registrar
Professor John Wilson - A Head of School
Dr Chris Andrew - A former Head of School
Mr Mark Rollinson - The Head of Governance Services
Professor Michael Harloe - A former Vice Chancellor

Acting on behalf of the Claimant

Mr Ian Austin - Formerly of Halliwells and the Lawyer for the Claimant
Mr Simon Vaughan - Barrister (or Brief) for the Claimant


Greatly assisting the accused

Mr Eric Longley - The McKenzie Friend

Act II

The setting: The Accused has been named as The Defendant by The Claimant in a claim for libel. The Claimant has not yet issued proceedings against The Defendant as it seeks to gather conclusive evidence which The Claimant believes will prove that The Defendant and/or others are responsible (or not) for a website hosted on Wordpress called The Rat Catchers of the Sewers. Prior to this The Defendant has received several letters from the Claimant's legal representatives asking The Defendant to admit to being involved in the website. One other person is known to have received a similar letter. As is his right, The Defendant refused to accede to the request. He has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the blog. He has no obligation to supply any information to The Claimant. The Claimant, having no conclusive evidence to prove that The Defendant is involved, has asked the Court to grant an Order - a Letter of Request - that the host of the website (Automattic Inc who own Wordpress and are based in California) provide information that would confirm the originators, authors and contributors to the website and provide The Claimant with all IP addresses used to post on the Rat Catchers website. To date Automattic Inc have proved less than responsive.



It's a Saturday morning... the day before the day before


Saturday 19th November 2010
Yesterday brought with it a nice big juicy bundle of documents supplied by The Claimant's solicitors - yes three whole days before the hearing! It's nice to be indulged by the opposition and given more than sufficient time to prepare. I'm lucky to have a raft of top lawyers who have the resources to wade through the one hundred and eighty four pages before Monday. The telephone rings. I shake the almost irresistible gravitational attraction of further slumbers from my head, yawn, rub my eyes and quickly realise that the only raft I have is the one I'm adrift at sea on. I also make a mental note that it's made out of paper and it's a bit soggy. I stumble out of the bedroom and head in the general direction of the shrill claxon call of the telephone.

Legal representation - it's a costly business

Just to place things into their proper perspective, unlike The Claimant I'm gratuitously lacking in the legal representation department to some merry tune. In short, the luxury of a gaggle of lawyers with their accompanying pooled experience to draw upon, or to undertake for me this thoroughly unwholesome job of work is oddly amiss. The reason for this? As some may be aware I am currently, as they say, ' between positions' which in this case is rockhard and a funky place and penury and debtors gaol. Joking apart, Legal Aid isn't generally available to defend against allegations of libel and nothing leads me to believe that my door bell will be accosted in the very near future by a dashing William Garrow type. Despite this obvious deficiency, one coffee later and it dawns on me that it's the day before the day before the second court hearing and there is a considerable bundle of documents to be thoroughly absorbed.

One of these might get you in

The odd man out

Oddly enough, I wasn't invited to the first hearing. Although my name is firmly affixed next to the word "defendant" on the legal documents and witness statements I've so far received from the court and The Claimant's lawyer (hereafter referred to as The Lawyer), I was kept pretty much out of the initial hearing loop. The Claimant is seeking an order from the Court.  Without the intervention of the Judge - Judge Smith - I probably wouldn't have been invited to this one. Of this I was informed by a nice helpful chap in the Civil Justice Centre a few weeks back. It appears that the The Claimant's legal team, wary of being seen to conduct such affairs behind closed doors, sought to have this second hearing ex parte.*

The task in hand

Thus without the necessary resources to finance legal representation, I knuckle down and embark upon the gruelling task of reading one hundred and eighty four pages, combing through every word very carefully. I comb through it so thoroughly that I've given it an asymmetric side-parting and it'll be adorning the head of a loud, spotty middle class sixth form student on the grassy knoll adjacent to URBIS a week today. It's only taken a couple of hours but I'll have to re-read and take notes. I also come to realise that I have re-developed an enormous caffeine habit with its diuretically induced concomitant - an enormous latrine habit - which like its Japanese tea-based counterpart, has its own little ritual involving lunging towards the stairs holding your crotch whilst mentally teetering on a tightrope stretched betwixt leaving it 'til the last minute and obvious signs of pant pissing with associated potential rancour from my long-suffering wife.

As well as habitual urination, I conclude that document reading has become quite an everyday chore, an almost mundane daily have-to-do - with no end in sight. I justify this to myself in such pithy terms as inwardly repeating mantra like 'it goes with the territory'... 'it goes with the territory'... the territory of taking the line of most resistance. So, since my suspension in May 2009, my days and evening revolve principally around pouring over thousands of documents and emails provided by my former employer (in ET related matters known hereafter as The Respondent) under a Subject Access Request last November. This as well as a variety of online legal precedents and caselaw consume vast amounts of hours. But it has to be done in order to ensure that I have a fighting chance at the Employment Tribunal scheduled for next March.

Take two of these if the complaint persists

Money well spent

You may well ask why the UCU lawyers are not doing this particular joyous chore for me given my obvious former position as UCU branch Secretary and Casework Officer and lateral empty-pocket-edness (which has worryingly drawn both commentary and the odd bit of loose change from my local Big Issue seller). Yes it's an almost suicidal insistence and a bovine perspicacity that ensures that every month I continue payment of my monthly subscription to the UCU. But alas, satire it seems, has no role to play in the affairs of trade unionism.  I was informed last year that the union's lawyers would not be taking up my case for unfair dismissal. That seemed almost fair to me so I decided after weighing up my option to D.I.M. (do it meself). So in short, I've become all too familiar with a kettle, a toilet and the more arcane aspects of employment law. If we throw into the cauldron of opprobrium lashings of letter writing, job applications which also consume huge chunks of time, lots of telephone calls and a crash course in libel law, that pretty much sums up this thing that's euphemistically known these days as being.

However, I do get the odd spare minute to sit back and let my mind wander. My own personal experience and knowledge of the amount of work and time involved in building a case for an ET,  I marvel at those who fought their own corner before the advent of the electronic abacus. So much is readily accessible over the electronic ether these days. It has its down side as the limitless amounts of information at the end of a mouse means sifting through the irrelevant which also consumes vast chunks of one's life.

Thus, in between writing emails to Mr Matthew Stephenson, the Information Commissioner, emails to Mr Matthew Stephenson , the Employment Tribunal, emails to Mr Matthew Stephenson (he's getting a Christmas card this year), letters to two sets of University lawyers (one for the ET and one for the current libel proceedings), this blog and negotiating a route through the ins and outs of the various pieces of legislation around Freedom of Information, Data Protection and such like, by the end of the day I'm about as intellectually responsive as shell-bound Galapagian on heroin with massive egotistical pretensions towards facial topiary.

Well worth the effort
An exercise in futility?

I confess that I did glance through the bundle yesterday in between trying to look after my two and a half year old grand daughter whilst drinking copious amounts of coffee and urinating all too regularly, not all at the same time I might add. But there was no contest between epic documentary forays into allegations and precedent and the building of an incredibly life-like representation of Tidmouth Sheds out of wooden building bricks for Eleanor's rapidly expanding collection of Thomas the Tank Engine and Colleagues (academic version). This I do conscientiously so that she can simply knock them over without a second thought or a single care. In fact after several rebuilds I began to imagine exactly how a Russian repeat dissident felt after several years in Stalin's Defoian pillory - the Siberian slave labour camp - for producing Samizdat literature.

But today the sun is shining and I really could do with getting out on my bicycle. I raise my gaze from the huge bundle of documents, glance over at the tatty white canvas bag that contains the wooden building bricks. There they sit forlornly among a pile of discarded toys in the corner of the room. Eleanor will be here again tomorrow and despite its Sisyphean futility, rebuilding Tidmouth Sheds once again seems a much more fruitful labour.

I closed the folder and the lid of my laptop. Time for another coffee.

*Caution: mildly ironical and definitely not believed serious enough to warrant further libel proceedings
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Mark well these words



"...we particularly value academic freedom and freedom of expression within a framework of respect and tolerance for the views of others."

"Our decision to focus on Human Rights and Social Justice – one of our chosen themes - serves both as a direction for teaching and research, but also as a means of framing all that we do." (1)

The Installation speech of one Professor Martin Hall, Vice Chancellor of the University of Salford, delivered before a distinguished audience in 2009

Mark well these words



A hearing into things deemed libellous by....

The University of Salford

versus

Dr Gary Paul Duke

Monday 22nd day of November commencing at the hour of two o'clock


Sitting before District Judge Smith
In the County Court of Manchester,
The Civil Justice Centre,
1 Bridge Street West




(1) Hall M, Vice-Chancellor, University of Salford, Installation Address, Monday 12 October 2009, sourced at http://www.corporate.salford.ac.uk/leadership-management/martin-hall/wp-content/uploads/installationv2.pdf