The Friends of Ethical Writing

“The Communist Party will be the only master of the minds and thoughts, the spokesman, leader and organiser of people in their entire struggle for communism.” Pravda, 7 July 1956 

How clever John Adams was to say that all democracies end up in suicide. The British democracy has been trying to top itself off for while, but as the recent Leveson report has concluded with a demand for a new regulator for the press, the signs are that its end is very near now. 

An independent body, ultimately validated by the State, to regulate the ethics of the press has been recommended – paradoxically - in order to ensure that the press is really free. Free not to embarrass public figures with revelations of their misconduct, while, at the same time, the onerous libel laws in Britain make us the destination of international crooks and London the capital of reputation laundering? But no judge would speak out against this state of affairs, for this is what keeps them in clover. 

Furthermore, who, on earth, would be independent enough to oversee such an important wielder of power as the media, and who is independent enough to appoint the independents? Essentially, what you will get is the politicians in charge of those supposed to bring them to task. 

This impetus for tougher regulation betrays, in fact, a very pessimistic view on the capacity of the British public to meditate on what they read and to control the media themselves through their own free choice and demand. A free press - no matter its derelictions - trains the people’s power of reason. Why should we fear intrusion by the media? This is what keeps a more frightful kind of intrusion – that carried out by the State itself - in check. 

We already have a plethora of statutes and powers that can be used to deal with abuses by the media; the fact that these were not used by the past Labour administration in the historical cases heard by Leveson is a far more serious matter. 

Do not be fooled by the vociferous ‘public’ outrage and the cant of those now putting pressure on the government to conceive new laws for the press - those virtuous citizens and victims of press indiscretions are simply actors in a play scripted by politically motivated higher powers, powers who simply wish to grab more control over us. 

Ill-advised creatures, signing petitions, may not realise that they could usher in a regime similar to that described in Orwell’s 1984 or in Mercier’s utopian novel, The Year 2440, where most books are destroyed and where ‘dangerous sceptics’, authors of literary works deemed bad for the people’s minds, are rounded up and interrogated until they are willing to admit to their errors. 

Intrusion by press does not destroy lives – it may temporarily upset them – but, in the end, freedom provides the necessary self-redressing mechanisms that an authoritarian State does not possess. What can destroy lives, however, are the gags imposed on the media, journalistic cowardice and the lack of ability to make your mind and your own choice. 

We hope that the Prime Minister will think carefully, as he said he would, and will not be swept away by this flurry of pre-meditated madness.

The Royal Courts of Justice

There’s been regretfully a protracted period of silence on this blog, owing to our busy schedule breaking the silence elsewhere and dealing with a whole set of related matters – matters that have eventually taken us all the way up to the Royal Courts of Justice. 

That was for us a first time experience and we were filled with trepidation at the chance of visiting that magnificent bastion of righteousness in the Strand. The edifice housing the Royal Courts of Justice is impressive; designed by George Edmund Street in the Victorian Gothic Revival style, the appearance of the construction, both external and internal, is illustrative of the idea of what society ought to be – morally correct, spiritually elevated and pure. 

And to make sure that society is so, nowadays, visitors are X-rayed and frisked at the entrance, lest some deadly weapons are fired in court. The inner corridors (and there are over 3 miles of them, we are told) were pretty vacant, except for a few black flocks of bewigged barristers, dashing along – vulturine and predacious – and descending upon various courtrooms in their paths. They were followed by judges, more measured in pace, making their way towards the same venues, with the confidence and composure of those habituated to veracity. 

At the oral hearing held by the Court of Appeal, we were honoured by the presence of a lord justice of appeal and allowed to present our argument at length. The facts were plain and our dispute pointed at the distorted logic of earlier court decisions. Our case being so politically sensitive and embarrassing, the lower courts must have thought that it could only be tackled by abandoning standard logic. And abandon it they did. 

The appeal judge, however, did not seem to be listening; we got the impression that he had other preoccupations, which our oral submission hindered to some extent. Not that it was any point in listening anyway, as the Court of Appeal seemed to have made their minds beforehand as to the outcome – or to have had their minds made for them. (Nothing of what we submitted seemed to be acknowledged.) So, in order to save everybody time and spasms of mind, the court quickly decided that the appeal should not be allowed. 

We were told that the decision was for our own good. This may be true, but, as we know very well from history, this assurance is often used by the State to justify the perpetration of many crimes. 

The idea of justice – as Epicurus said, is that it prevents men from harming and from being harmed. And that is, I have to admit, the very idea that the British justice system applies when it prevents us from harming the interests of our opponents – high-rank politicians and officials - and when it prevents them from the unpleasant task of accounting for their actions.

HM Courts and Tribunals - part 2

HM Courts and Tribunals

Following up from our post of 25 May 2011, we can now advise that the Case Management Discussion (CMD) mentioned there took place on the 27th of May, as scheduled.

The Department for Transport (and the MCA), the Respondents in the case, always liberal with taxpayers’ money, had hired a top-notch lawyer for the event. This barrister (who also sits as a judge) - a slightly fresher version of Justice Eady - has recently been given notoriety by the Daily Mail – as a gagger.

The CMD, unbefittingly called a ‘discussion’, consisted of the Respondents’ Counsel giving directions to the judge and the judge showing little resistance in following them, while the Claimant, accommodated with ostensibly dissimulated impatience, was hardly allowed to speak. The barrister hired by the DfT looked so upset that it was hard to believe that he was simply acting on the government’s behalf. The judiciary may have been closing ranks, we reckoned, bearing in mind that the Claimant’s disclosures have cast doubt on the integrity of a number of prominent figures within the judicial brotherhood.

What felt stranger, however, was the impression we got that the judge presiding over the CMD seemed somehow afraid of the government’s Counsel, and even took the cue from him as to when to take a break and when to adjourn.

Their plan was to remove the DfT from the proceedings, probably, so as to cut short the liability chain and ‘ring-fence’ the wrongdoing at some junior level within the MCA. Warned that trying to push her arguments forward will be sanctioned by the Court, the Claimant’s representative used the few moments when she was directed to give yes or no answers to a couple of questions to try to object to the Tribunal’s steamroller technique. At one such moment, she tried to suggest that not only the DfT, but also the Crown and former DPM John Prescott should be added as Respondents, a suggestion that was met with instant opposition from the judge and an indignant snort from the DfT’s barrister. The matter, however, was left unresolved.

Further on, the DfT’s Counsel demanded that a deposit be paid before the full hearing so as to make the access to justice more difficult – justice, it seems, is not a luxury for the plebs. The opposing party was prepared to do anything to prevent a full hearing where evidence, witness testimonies and the thorny matter of the Gaul could be heard in open court.

The end of the CMD was marked by the DfT’s Counsel delivering a diatribe against his opponent and the judge’s failure to intervene or to allow the Claimant to respond.

A pre-hearing review has been scheduled for the 11th of July and a full hearing for the 17th of October. But we very much doubt that there is much to expect from our justice system. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

Privacy or the latest protection racket

"Have you ever wished that something in your life had never happened, just call 0800 …today, and we can help you" - this is the kind of advert that we could expect the High Court of Justice to place in the national press any day now.

Confusing privacy, perhaps, with clandestinity, our High Court judges now offer tailor-made injunctions that can conceal the misbehaviour of any celebrity or other well-heeled public figure, who has the wherewithal to pay for this privilege.
Reminiscent of the medieval church practice of selling indulgences for the forgiveness of sins, our courts are now providing much more than mere pardons for human transgressions, they are erasing their very existence - by self-ordained powers, which places members of the judiciary on an equal footing with God.

Recently, our judges have even devised tools that will gag you so effectively that you will not be even able to say that you have been gagged. So, upon having been granted a super-injunction, the supplicant, sporting a cloak of invisibility whenever it suits, will be able to maintain his respectable status as if nothing had happened, while the rest of society will be kept in blissful ignorance of its role models’ real credentials. And, when they have enough finance to pay for the enhanced, premium service – a super- contra mundum injunction, that will rival the ubiquity of God’s powers, can ensure that no one will ever be able criticise them in English or in any other language on Earth.

The sad fact, however, is that our courts are not protecting the privacy of the solitary, the vulnerable or the wrongfully maligned; they are just making the law with a view to protecting the elite from the public exposure that would make it difficult for the law enforcement authorities to keep their eyes closed. (I remember one senior Met officer once telling me, in respect of our complaint, "If the newspapers don’t write about it, it cannot be true".)

The right to freedom of speech and the principle of open justice in Britain seem to come second to the rights of some to sweep their faults under the carpet. The long-term consequences of this state of affairs cannot be yet fully appraised, nor is anybody able to tell when it was that we first started to allow our justice system to go so madly astray.

Justice Removed

“Justice removed, then what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers” (Augustine, City of God)

In our post of 30 January 2011, we mentioned the fact that we had finally commenced legal action against the Government (the DfT, MCA etc.) and that our complaints revolved around the Government’s refusal to address, openly and honestly, the disclosures about the Gaul and the other miscarriages of justice and cover-ups.

However, in the process of fighting against past miscarriages of justice, we are becoming increasingly suspicious that new abuses and inequities may be taking place in order to obscure the old ones.

To be more precise, we found that, first of all, hiring legal advice was for us a major problem, in that most of the law firms we approached – and we contacted quite a few – were initially very keen to take on our case, then, suddenly and inexplicably, lost heart just before clinching the deal. The name of the Gaul seems to have acted as a powerful deterrent for our prospective lawyers. On many occasions we were surprised to note that, although not yet familiar with the merits of our case or with any of the evidence supporting it, many law firms told us that we were not going to win. Others simply avoided looking at our documents or even attending a previously agreed appointment in person, and, only hours after genuinely showing themselves quite optimistic and well disposed towards accepting our custom, many solicitor’s feet turned cold. Others’ brief advice was so implausible that it almost made us laugh.

We couldn’t understand this curious behaviour displayed by a group usually well known for their lack of inhibitions. It is possible, of course, that they knew something else that they wouldn’t tell and that such knowledge had not been gained through divination.

But it would be amazing, wouldn’t it, if we were to learn that some invisible, political force had offered them guidance?

Some time ago we were given a clearer answer when a solicitor informed us that a court’s ruling in our favour “would be unpopular with the powers that be” and that we would not be allowed to succeed. How extraordinary! Is there a judicial mafia in this country that decides the outcome of legal cases before they come to court? Would the fact that the Gaul saga touches unpleasantly upon the integrity of the judiciary make the legal profession gang up against this case?

Anyway, we have eventually managed to find a less fearful solicitor and a most competent one as well – whom we keep, though, at a safe distance so as to protect him from the noxious fumes of this lawsuit - and we are now toddling along curious to see what further abuses this poor kingdom can accommodate.

The MV Derbyshire – re-visited

These are my mates, that make their wills their law. (William Shakespeare, The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Act V, scene iv)

In the four and a half years that we’ve been running this blog, we have highlighted and commented on a multitude of serious ‘anomalies’ associated with the re-opened official inquiries into the sinkings of the trawler Gaul (36 lives lost), the OBO MV Derbyshire (44 lives lost) and most recently in the FV Trident investigation (7 lives lost).

Our studies over the years have exposed a number of common themes running through each of these inquiries, from which, in fact, a clear and recurring pattern has emerged:

1. Evidence presented in court that could lead to a finding of fault or blame (and which could lead to litigation) was suppressed, while evidence supporting the government’s preferred outcome was promoted. Nonetheless, the possibility of negligence or errors on the part of the crew (who obviously could not defend themselves) was always a theme that the court’s official investigators were happy to explore.
2. Over many years, public officials have treated the families of the deceased in an offhand, uncaring manner and actively thwarted their aspirations to learn the truth of what had happened and what caused those tragedies.
3. A number of personnel/experts/organisations have been repeat players in two or more of these public inquiries, while in the field of physical and computer modelling and tank testing the same overseas research facility has always been chosen to deliver crucial technical input to each investigation.
4. The government (the DfT), although responsible for setting and enforcing safety standards on UK ships, has been effective in distancing itself from even the slightest hint of criticism in each and all of these public inquires

With the above points in mind, and being slightly more cynical now, we thought we would re-visit the Derbyshire 2000 RFI.

On page 17 of its final official report we find that:

the UK Government cannot be criticised for failing to secure agreement…

On page 21 we find that:

This report does not recommend that the UK Government should act unilaterally…

On page 24 we read that:

The long delay […] in organising an underwater survey cannot be the basis of any criticism of the UK Government

And from page 151 we learn that:

…the UK Government cannot be criticised for reaching this solution. The Ministry of Transport and the UK delegation did all that reasonably could be done to obtain agreement to enhanced hatch cover strength.

So that’s it then, the inquiry judge has told us that the DOT, MOT, DETR (or whatever the DfT was known as at that time) cannot be criticised for anything associated with the Derbyshire tragedy.

We are now going to check up on one or two of these points.

A small test of integrity

We are currently still waiting for the final conclusions of the FV Trident Re-opened Formal Investigation to be published. However, from what we’ve gathered so far, it seems that the government has already decided to prevent the truth from emerging at the end of this protracted and costly inquiry; we do not believe for a moment that the Aberdeen Sheriff will be able to deliver anything other than the outcome requested by UK ministers.

The current government should have had few reasons to manipulate the results of this formal investigation, unless pressures threatening to affect their political interests have recently provided them with suitable motivation.

Of course, it is not difficult to understand that those who directed the cover-up in the Gaul RFI have a vested interest in seeing that the Trident inquiry goes the same way. Delivering justice in the Trident case, they might fear, could open the Gaul’s families’ eyes and their appetite for a similar treatment.

What may be even more daunting is that subsequent disclosures about the miscarriage of justice in the Gaul case would be linked to some of the most prominent entries in the New Labour Party bestiary.

Notwithstanding that, we would urge our government once again to resist undue pressures, permit an honest conclusion to the Trident investigation and allow the families of the victims to finally obtain justice. It is too ugly to persist with the deception, especially when these families know very well that they are being deceived.
It is also imprudent to think that the truth - already difficult to contain - would not, sooner or later, overcome official censorship, lies and the suppression of facts. Any delay in acknowledging this can only make a future exposure many times more embarrassing.

The Trident RFI may be just a small test of official integrity, but small things like this determine the direction of a government’s course and the chances they have of passing other, more strenuous trials.

LINK

Cowardice and other hindrances

Over the last four years we have published substantive evidence of a miscarriage of justice in the outcome of the Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation, in which the Court decided that the crew had been responsible for the tragedy while conveniently ignoring serious faults in the vessel’s design and actively suppressing the evidence thereof.
Over the last four years we have dutifully brought these issues to the attention of all relevant authorities and succeeding governments. The past New Labour administrations, naturally, had no interest in addressing them.

But the newly installed government coalition promised us change – change that we understood would be for the better and, as we have recently made some progress (the Met Police had just become slightly more candid and the DfT a touch more sensitive to facts), we thought that appropriate action was forthcoming.

At the same time, however, the left-wing press turned the spotlight on some past minor scandals, rekindled and hyped up to provoke outrage and unsettle the present administration. (And irony of ironies, and amazing coincidence, old John Prescott, the main protagonist in the Gaul and Derbyshire re-opened investigations, was one of the first to jump onto the media circus bandwagon and, becoming suddenly aggrieved with some perceived past infringements to his privacy and loudly condemning the Police indifference to his claims, threatened them with costly legal action.)

All these irate attacks by the political opposition, though irrelevant to the general public, appear, nonetheless, to have made our government lose composure and falter in its commitment to rectify the errors of the past regime.

Failed inquiries, aborted investigations and other unexposed official transgressions seem nowadays to be like stashed away ammunition - ready for use in political battles - or some form of convertible currency, to be traded off on the black market of politics.

For, nowadays, government and political opposition are all part of the same intricate mesh, tightly tangled together in mutual interests, cowardice and ignominy.

P.S. We urge the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to start acting with integrity.

The judge

Justice Steel, the Wreck Commissioner in the 2004 Gaul RFI, his term having recently expired, has stepped down from the Presidency of the Commercial Court.
In spite of our tenacious attempts, we have never managed to establish a direct contact with His Honour, as he has been very agile at avoiding us.
There is sparse data in the public domain about the life and career of justice Steel, so, for your information, we can only provide an extract from Who’s Who 2006 catalogue:

STEEL, Hon. Sir David (William), Knighted in 1998; Hon Mr Justice Steel; a judge of the High Court of Justice, since 1998; Presiding Judge, Western Circuit, since 2002; born 7 May 1943; son of Lincoln Steel and late Barbara (née Goldschmidt); [In January 1998, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine, Tony Blair’s former mentor) he was appointed High Court Judge]; Judge Admiralty Court 1998-; Judge Commercial Court 1998-; a Wreck Commissioner for England and Wales 1982-1998; Chairman, Commercial Bar Association, 1990-1991; Member, Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, 1994-1998; Chairman, OUBC Trust Fund Committee, 1990-1993

Mr Steel has represented the Government on a number of memorable occasions:

In 1987, he represented the Department of Transport and had conduct of the Formal Investigation into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster at Zeebrugge. (188 lives lost with the casualty attributed to serious negligence by the crew)

In 1989, he again represented the Department of Transport and had conduct of the Formal Investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire. (44 lives lost with the vessel considered to have been overwhelmed by the forces of nature – not a design fault as alleged by the families of the victims)

Mr Steel’s involvement in the Gaul legal case started in 1978 when A.M. Jackson & Co., Solicitors for the Insurance Company, engaged Michael Thomas QC and David Steel to advise on the defence on the negligence charge that had been brought against the Gaul Owners and Builders.[1],[2]
In 2000, the guiding hand of fate brought David Steel once again at the epicentre of the Gaul saga - this time as Wreck Commissioner in the Re-opened Formal Investigation (RFI).
The victims’ families - I have been informed - as if possessed by a sombre premonition, tried to recuse him from the RFI on the basis of his previous involvement in the case.
However, although it is stated in law that a judge can be recused by opposition of either party or disqualify himself on grounds of prejudice or personal involvement, and despite the fact that there were certainly many others capable of sitting as Wreck Commissioner for the Investigation, the families’ resistance to justice Steel’s appointment did not succeed, and they had to contend themselves with the Commissioner chosen by the government.

Having always held the judges of this country in some kind of veneration, after our disclosures, we expected Sir David to show some last-minute sympathy towards the idea of putting right what he had obviously let go wrong. As Admiralty judge and head of for the 2004 Investigation, he was in a good position to recommend a re-opening of the case.

We were, however, to be disappointed: justice Steel decided to hide and stay quiet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The Loss of the Motor Trawler Gaul, by John Nicklin, 1998
[2] The owner of the shipyard in 1978 was British Shipbuilders (a State Corporation), hence Mr Steel was effectively acting for the Government of the day (i.e. Labour)