The Lido Shuffle revisited

It was with some unbounded glee that I read THE article in Wednesday's Manchester Evening News. And it got me to a thinking, which regular readers of this blog will know is nearly always a bad thing. First thing first. Some might be surprised to learn that Hall and 'Five Lane' Graves have decided to seek permission to appeal the decision of the Honourable Mr Justice Eady in the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Eady is probably the most distinguished and eminent senior libel judge in England. I have submitted my rebuttal.

Reputational damage?

The libel claim launched by the dynamic duo was premised upon protecting the reputation of the University which Hall and Graves alleged I had damaged through my online scribblings. Mr Justice Eady was quite clear and agreed with me that the libel claim as laid out by Ian Austin acting for the University, demonstrated no tort against the University. Readers may recall that Mr Austin sat on the University governing body and chaired their Audit Committee at the launching of the proceedings in the High Court. From the perspective of the University, this was a real shame because quite a considerable sum of University money was spent on legal fees for a case that was thrown out be a senior High Court judge AT A PRELIMINARY STAGE! Who, I wondered, would be footing the bill for this appeal: Hall and 'Five Lane'? Or would it be the University? Maybe the Salford UCU President Chris Sheehy would like to follow this one up with Vice Chancellor Hall in light of the recent attacks on staff redundancy payments and pay protection rights?

Information is a wonderful thing

On to the meatus of the matter. As luck would have it, they've just released information showing the costs so far of their High Court reputation protecting spendings. They currently stand at around £150,000 including VAT. Yes £150,000 spent to be cast out of the courts AT A PRELIMINARY STAGE! It appears that the vast bulk of this money was paid to legal firms for whom Mr Austin was working. Indeed a rather sizeable sum was paid to Heatons LLP. Mr Austin is currently a partner for this firm. Readers might also note that as evidenced by Heatons' website, at the date of publication of this article Mr Austin is still advertised as being the Chair of the Audit Committee at Salford and on the University governing body. According to the University's website,  he isn't.

Who worked for Halliwells LLP, HBJ Gately Wareing
(Manchester) LLP and Heatons LLP? Answers
on a postcard please

What price the reputation now?

I posed a question to myself. And I liked the answer. I re-read the report in the paper. It's alleged that a similar incident happened prior to this most recent altercation. It was serious enough for the police to be involved. I then mulled over what is alleged to have occurred between Graves and A.N.Other in the vicinity of the University swimming pool, adjacent to the water within the deep and heady miasma of the chlorine. I then drew a link between the spending of somewhere in the region of £150,000 and the recent removal of Graves from University grounds and the concomitant investigation against this less-than-lacklustre-libel-launcher. I then  factored in the most recent 'a seeking of permission to appeal the decision of Eady J' to the Court of Appeal by Hall and Graves in order to continue to protect the reputation of the University. Finally, I cross-referenced all of this against the report in the Manchester Evening News. This I managed to achieve with simple tools: an old buff-ended Crayola crayon covered in deep settee fluff, my eyes and a wizened Rizla. I fed this raw data into the REPUTOMETER. What sort of results would manifest themselves I wondered? I was worried. I didn't hang around to find out.

Maybe I should start my letter to Professor Hall 'what price the University's reputation now?'

Notes and Resources 

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

Jacques le tueur de géants

Ye odde looking antipode... get ye back to feck!

I'm not one for an over-reliance on biblical euphemia...*  I'll admit, I've toyed with references to the former Chas Hes on the odd occasion but I don't recall majoring on the oft used David and Goliath analogy. I do, however, hold a long-standing passion for ancient myths particularly Greek mythology. I also have a soft spot for the Philistines. I was drawn firstly to their be-feathered headdress. As the origin of these peoples is steeped in mystery, this allowed me to develop what some might describe as a rather romantic notion of a multi-cultured group of seafarers - the Sea Peoples - brazenly alighting on the shores of what is today is known as the Gaza Strip.

Rum

The Philistines got a rather rummy deal from the authors of 'The Good Book': from the Health and Safety eschewing Samson through to the 200 Philistines' foreskin-smiting David. As a consequence, the word 'Philistine' became synonymous with dullardry and uncultured lumpenism, both higher odour concepts. And such is one's inclination for the historical underdog, a chap has more than a deal of respect for their heirs, the courageous and unbowed Palestinian people. But as always, and before I crow about my own victory in the higher courts of this land, I hazard reflective caution: it would be utterly disingenuous and decency-lacking to try and compare my paltry three year long battle in the libel courts against Graves and Vice Chancellor Martin Hall, with the nearly seventy year struggle for justice of the Palestinians, against the armed-to-the-teeth vicious attack dog of the US, the Israeli state.**

What an emminent libel Judge said...

To business. There is much in the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's decision that in my opinion raise highly pertinent questions. A chap of some park-bench-stench would encourage you to read the fullness of the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's judgement . Let's start with the basics. Hall and Graves' claim was "an abuse of the court's process." Mr Justice Eady states:

"I regard it as wholly unreal, and indeed an abuse of the court’s process, for these proceedings to continue on the basis that the only claimant is the University when the conduct to be examined in any plea of justification or fair comment would be that of Dr Graves and Professor Hall."(Para 11)

and...

"It is in the light of this pleading that I have come to my conclusion that, in substance and reality, this is an action about allegations against individuals rather than against the University itself... I am not convinced that there is a “real and substantial tort”, so far as the University is concerned, or that the proceedings should be allowed to continue purely for the purpose of the University’s obtaining an injunction to stifle criticism of Dr Graves and Professor Hall (for that is what it is about)."(Para 23)

Mr Justice Eady is clear: "this is an action about allegations against individuals rather than the University itself" and the instigators of this action are Vice Chancellor Martin Hall and the Chief Operating Officer, his subordinate, one Dr Adrian Graves. It is they who have sought an injunction, according to Mr Justice Eady, in order to stifle criticism of themselves.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

Hall and Oates

Hall and Graves as senior managers of a publicly funded University are 'entrusted with funds, both public and private'. They subscribe to the Nolan Committee's 'Seven Principles of Public Life'. I know this to be the case because its emblazoned on their Code of Conduct for Members of Council and Senior Officers. The Nolan Committee classes Higher Education institutions as 'public bodies'. The preamble to the Seven principles of Public Life (SPoPL) state:

"The principles of public life apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, NDPBs, and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also have application to all those in other sectors delivering public services."

Any reasonable person would conclude that that Hall and Graves are public office-holders because they are appointed to work in... well higher education. One of the Seven Pillars of Public Life is 'Selflessness': "Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest...". Have Hall and Graves acted in the public interest in pursuing this libel claim in the name of the University of Salford? I submitted to the Court of Appeal that there was no public interest in allowing this claim to proceed. The claim showed no nexus between the reputations of Hall and Graves and the reputation of the University. I further submitted that it should therefore be struck down by the Court. It is clear from Mr Justice Eady's judgement that he was in agreement.

Openness... the antithesis of shuttedness?

'Openness' is also a key principle of the SPoPL. It states: "Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner."

Graves (above) with Hall wanted an injunction against this
blog to stifle criticism of ... er Graves and Hall according 
to a top libel Judge. It's not known if he was
still smiling after the Court's decision

Many people reading this blog will be wondering why the two did not initiate an action in their own names and therefore fund it themselves? Others might be asking, who advised them to initiate the action in the name of the University of Salford? In my oral submissions to the Court, I made it clear that a claim in the University's name would serve to indemnify Hall and Graves from a potential costs liability, and act to protect them from negative publicity if the libel claim failed. But there are further compelling questions.

Questions... questions... questions...

In 2009 and again in 2010-2011, I made two separate Subject Access Request to the University for all information concerning me, held by the University. I have not received any documentation that suggests that the launching of the libel action against myself, was discussed officially at any University Council meeting. Indeed, I've asked on this website for such a record, minute or note of any such meeting to be supplied to me. None has been provided to me by either Hall, Graves or any other senior manager or employee of the University. Nor can I find any record of it in the minutes published online.

In order to ensure that'[h]olders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner'?, did the two people central to the launching of this libel claim, Professor Hall and Dr Graves, and former University Council member Ian Austin who acted in his legal capacity for the University***, ensure that the serving of Letters of Claim on me in March 2010 and the launching of this libel claim in the name of the University in 2011, were discussed and debated fully by the University governing body, the University Council? If so, can they point this particular libel claim diminisher to the minutes of just such University Council meetings and/or the full record of such discussions and decisions taken by the University Council in agreeing to the launching of the libel claim?

More importantly, given the sheer cost of this failed claim, prior to launching the claim did Hall and/or Graves, or any member of University Council inform the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE)?  It is after all a rather large sum of money. Neither Hall, Graves or indeed Mr Austin have ever denied that the University have funded this claim.

What is to be done?

So what has Professor Hall's and Graves' libel claim cost? It's certainly been an expensive adventure costing in the many tens of thousands of pounds, quite possibly exceeding £100,000. In the spirit of the Seven Principles of Public Life, ie 'Openness' and 'transparency' may I suggest someone immediately makes a Freedom of Information request for the exact figure? Even better, maybe Professor Hall or Dr Graves could make public the full costs to date of their failed libel claim?

Hall and Graves have made much since 2009 onwards about the need to cut staff and staff costs because of the cuts in funding of around £3.5 million. According to reports, Hall was reported as trying to justify the cuts saying that '58% of the University income is spent on funding staff'. In light of the huge sums spent by Hall and Graves on this failed libel claim, this must surely ring a little hollow to those staff who've recently lost their jobs?

A clarion call for at least two official investigations

I am of the opinion, in light of Mr Justice Eady's verdict, that given this huge waste of University funds, there should be an immediate inquiry into who exactly made the decision to allow University funds to be used to launch this libel claim. I will be writing to HEFCE asking as a matter of urgency, that it initiate its own investigation into this use of University funds in this way. I will also be writing to the Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willetts, asking that he initiate a full investigation into this matter.

The failure of this misguided libel claim is in my opinion such a serious issue, that it must merit the immediate resignations of Vice Chancellor Martin Hall and Deputy Vice Chancellor Adrian Graves.

Notes and Resources

* Quite possibly the plural for euphemism and/or Euphonium
** Worth laying another myth to bed: yes I'm afraid, having a rather critical view of Israel and Zionism doesn't automatically make one an anti-semite as some would have us believe.
*** The Court heard how Mr Austin's tenure as a University Council member ended in June 2012

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). 

 The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. 

Email garypaulduke@gmail.com

An appeal, Mr Justice Eady and the obvious benefits of Betamax over VHS

Just to prove that a certain chap of some facial discomfiture has not been making this up for the last (nearly) three years,  the die has inexorably been cast. At 10:30 am on Monday 28th January 2013, in Court 13 in the Court of Appeal itself within the Royal Courts of Justice, a whisker-sodden sc'undrel's appeal is being heard before the esteemed Mr Justice Eady. 

Is there a public interest?

The overriding argument behind this appeal is to invite the Court to decide that there is no public interest in allowing a public authority such as a state funded university to sue in defamation, in this case libel. Readers may recall the Derbyshire Principle. Should a public authority be able to sue for libel? I've argued in court that it's a tad hostile to something known in the freedoms trade as 'freedom of expression'. How much? Well get your foot rules out and measure this: the Rat Catchers of the Sewers website has been unavailable to the public because of this claim since April/May 2010. Nope... no injunction has been served on this tweed-wearer so far. It's been achieved through a simple mechanism known among the libel fraternity as the 'chilling effect'. It's rather effective. Let's look at a hypothetical ramification if a university as a public authority is allowed to sue in defamation.

Hypothetical Ramification #5 - it's not on the White Album

You are an employee of a public authority. This public authority has itself published surveys that show senior managers are responsible for significant levels of staff bullying and what a reasonable person might describe as extraordinary levels of harassment. You're a rep in your trade union and decide to speak out about your own experiences and the experiences of members of your union. You decide to raise them at a forthcoming lunchtime public union meeting. You read in the press that your employer - the public authority - has decided to sue one of your members for libel. You shiver.

A much-valued Sony Betamax in happier days,
taking in some much needed Vitamin D

Legal representation - open to everyone regardless of ability to pay

Now you're a principled person. You want to do right by your members. Yet there's a problem. You can't get Legal Aid for defending against defamation claims. So you decide to lodge your pride and joy - a 1982 technically superior Betamax video cassette recorder (with an unaligned but recently degaussed playback/record head) with your local 'Your Stuff to Cash Transformer'.  You receive an almost kingly ransom of £12.30 and wonder why staff are pissing themselves in paroxysms as you leave the 'shop'. After checking over the health of your current account through the wizardry of modern online banking techniques, you decide that as your overdraft doesn't extend to several hundreds of thousands of pounds for lining the pockets of the legal profession, you might be better served keeping your gob shut and not standing for re-election next year as union rep. It's an employer's dream strategy and it's only gone and ruddy well worked. Soon word gets round, and across the country the fear sets in. Everyone's terrified that there might be a management stooge in their union meetings with a concealed digital voice recorder. Collectively they shudder at the thought of that Pre-Action Protocol dropping through their letter boxes.

Back to the events of tomorrow

Deputy Vice Chancellor Graves and Professor Hall have for this appeal, decided to secure the services of  Counsel in the shape of one Mr Justin Rushbrooke. I'm told he's very good indeed. I wonder how much his services are costing? It's likely that former Chair of Audit for Salford University governing council Ian Austin will be there in his legal capacity representing the University. I wonder how much his services have cost so far throughout this whole process?

I as usual, will be representing myself.

Notes and Resources

Before considering taking legal action in the form of a libel claim, all the above has been asserted in open court, so there!

Usual disclaimer: This work is and expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and contains the opinions of the author. It is intended to report current events that are of public interest and public concern. The reproduction and use of any documents, photos and video images herein is to provide humour and accuracy in order to avoid civil litigation and claims of misquoting. In reporting current events they are used within the context of Fair Dealing or Fair Use. The author is happy to provide further acknowledgement if requested (email below). 

 The author also suggests that before embarking upon expensive civil actions for libel, contact the author. We have reams of documentary evidence which we are happy to provide. A right of reply also operates. We are also happy to make corrections and if necessary provide an apology. Email garypaulduke@gmail.com