Dear #SaveUKJustice Family it looks like we got trouble with the Judiciary plus args AGAIN the Leveson Saga continues with our Crime JR

Criminal defence specialist, partner, Vice President, parent, browser of good music, cyclist, activist, Leeds fan… fingers in too many pies

London
Joined December 2010
Tweet to Jonathan Black
Play

 

Play

 

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 

Play

 
 

 

Tweets

 

What aspect of your justice policy has gone to plan so far Mr Grayling ? The man with this golden touch ?

Grayling needs to resign after these revelations in court today. Burying a report that didn’t fit with his plans.

1) People wear watches. 2) Buy cell-phones, give up watches. 3) Give standing ovation to company revealing plans to sell watches.

Hodge accuses government of ‘shocking complacency’ over G4S and Serco – more problems for Grayling

tribute to Lord chancellor neither a liar or lawyer There’s A Guy Works Down The Chip Shop Swears He’s Elvis

Play

Embedded image permalink

 
 

The Lord Chancellor’s anthem ?

Play

Embedded image permalink

 
 

I need my teenage son to see the inside of a cell – an ideal opp ?

Put all the tweets together and get this report by makes more sense on one page

LC Response to Consultation has just been shortlisted for the for fiction!

J : you are looking for evidence that LC did not lie . Narrow issue is whether claimant ought to have been shown the reports

JCQC : not saying a lie , saying criticism of him that he had already decided to drop pct when he handnt

J invited the allegation to be withdrawn

J :this alleged is not relevant . Quite strong to accuse minister of crown of lying to a prof organisation on dealings with

J : bold submission yesterday led to conclusion that LC had personally lied on dealing with TLS in quite colourful light

No evidence from def as to when decision to drop PCT was taken .

Notes of mtgs with TLS requested for 29/08 not record any discussion at all . says TLS were threatened with pct

JCQC refers to stmt re meeting with Gibby . Not responded to by her in the litigation

J questions whether the issue of the LC is relevant at all but allows him to respond

JCQC concludes with conduct of LC

JCQC number of fee cuts and contract soE is linked. Contracts too large . The way to reduce contracts is reduce the fee cut.

J : your submission – suppose if calculations different throw up more. LC might have coupled that with smaller cut

JCQC deals with fee cuts . Important part of methodology as need fee cuts for the proposals

JCQC lord chancellor on notice of procedings since March and took at. Leisurely pace can’t accuse of derailing

JCQC – otterburn said don’t being in fee cuts till had time to consolidation

JCQC never argued legitimate expectation , but at least would expect consultation

JCQC sorne of otterburn conclusion were not carried on through KPMG who just followed assumptions

JCQC submits that if MOJ were really listening they would have considered views of profession after otterburn and KPMG

JCQC Otterburn was only ever going to interview 25 firms out of total 600 . Otterburn doesn’t solve thd problem.

J: your submission was that you would have wanted to crunch numbers just as MOJ did .

Also we want to see it as well. What did go on ?why was 2tier agreed by TLS when Practitionergroups unanimously disagreed ?

JCQC the fact that MOJ spoke to TLS was they recognise that matters were dependent on professions views but ltd audience

JCQC it was obvious to MOJ that TLS was not representative of officials

JCQC fact that TLS knew about docs wasn’t enough. Those consulted was small number of officials . MOJ knew info not shared

JCQC Had there been any serious opportunity to respond on these matters it would have been done

JCQC – consultees were not given info to see methodology, devised by man. consultants with no regard to industrial knowhow

Spoke to after Justice PMQs. I’m convinced he was unaware JR . Civil servants keeping him in the dark?

JCQC it is right to ask consultees of they agree with methodology . But weren’t told the methodology

JCQC – 5th – did it prevent respondents to make a properly focused and meaningful response without that information

JCQC delay – nothing to say that this would have had an impact

3. – not a major point made

JCQC 2nd factor – significance of info . KPMG & otterburn – MOJ satisfied self with it. KPMG was critical

JCQC where high standard should be a presumption of procedural fairness

JCQC returns to 5 factors 1. High standard of procedural fairness – expected because of impact of justice system and firms

JCQC the fact that there was no need for a 3rd consultation suggests that LC had pre determined

JCQC question of how fairness required for individual consultees and demand of fairness to them rather than size of issue

JCQC had there been a considered view by LC instead he just dismisses as not necessary

so first report too sensitive to make public and 2nd + 3rd reports too uncontroversial 2 release as all objections predicted

Closing submission by Coppel QC for claimant

EadieQC contract numbers determined by fee reductions , not vice versa – so why not let market decide ?

EadieQC initial fee cut was going to happen regardless of model adopted. Contract design was to support fee reduction

EadieQC relief would be derailing process of scheme. A full blown improbable att to quash the excercise and fee reduction

EadieQC says PA report was not to be relied upon as a document as it was a recommendation to carry out further research

PA consulting report EadieQC can’t find if – still buried ?

Twitter affects advocacy – Eadie QC said he was going to say ‘tame poodles’ but changed his mind due to people tweeting.

Justify the assumptions by asking respondents to estimate split btn own and duty – isn’t the point we didn’t see research?

EadieQC passed up the invitation to practitioners to participate in otterburn terms of ref to consider viability of firms

EadieQC submits that it is clear that both options of pct and tendering were discussed with TLS

EadieQC Document handed up re allegation that LC had decided on 20/08 to ditch pct

Clerk ticked me off for using court power point to charge ‘phone. IT revolution not reached press bench at High Court.

MOJ position is that it had sensible answers to all the objections they wouldn’t let people make if had released reports !

J in reaching the assumptions input by KPMG, otterburn, TLS , Gibby & LC had chance – guess who’s missing from that grp.

EadieQC evidence of dr Gibby does not say LC would have reached same decision. Her view not his

EadieQC as matter of fairness . Little to suggest that further consultation would have any difference

Need to have clarity and certainty in promise or commitment for it to be relevant – so vague platitudes ok .

EadieQC can’t build a legit expectation from Meeting on Chatham h rules J: you have better points

nondisclosure of reports say MOJ was due to fear of delay not at all due to clear evidence of omnishambles of grand plan

Perhaps EadieQC shares the view that he the bar council need not have included in meetings with grayling ?

Richard Millar as we heard disagrees with the leadership of TLS – he was a dissenting voice in a tame organisation

EadieQC suggestion that they were tamed by TLS can be relied upon. Can point out examples lack of tameness

EadieQC dismisses the significance of TLS engagements as they were experts and representative

EadieQC : TLS was well placed to represent views of profs. Some Mbers may not agree but that doesn’t mean we have to meet

J : concern here was that it was perceived that TLS was speaking on behalf of profession when it want

State entitled subject to demands of fairness is state entitled to engage with whoever it wants

Time for TLS . Answer to J’s convent that engagement with TLS meant they had conceded case .

EadieQC wants to correct serious allegations about LC after lunch . Had emails to rebut WTS

Now we are onto TLS : EadieQC in light of submission about lord Chancellor- serious allegation made about LC conduct

The explosive points made yesterday about conduct of grayling Gibby etc has been entirely ignored . EadieQC rising above it

 

Grayling did not act improperly over reforms, court told

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/grayling-did-not-act-improperly-over-reforms-court-told/5042981.article?adfesuccess=1

Related images

  • Chris Grayling

Allegations that a bullying lord chancellor acted improperly in his dealings with the Law Society over criminal legal aid reforms were rebutted by his barrister today.

In the second day of a case brought by the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association – and part-funded the Law Society – James Eadie QC said there was ‘no impropriety’ in the way Chris Grayling had acted.

The two groups challenge the lawfulness of a consultation on the reforms because of the government’s failure to publish and consult on consultants’ reports.

Mr Justice Burnett heard yesterday that Grayling (pictured) had become personally involved in the consultation process and misled the Law Society by threatening it with the introduction of price-competitive tendering (PCT). 

The claimants alleged that when the Ministry of Justice reached an agreement with the Society in August 2013 on the introduction of a new dual-contracting regime, it had already decided to abandon PCT. 

But Eadie told the court today that at the August meeting with the Law Society, PCT was still on the table as an option. He said the ‘serious allegations’ made against Grayling had ‘no evidential basis’ and caused a ‘certain amount of umbrage’ among ministry officials.

Burnett invited Jason Coppel QC, for the claimants, to withdraw the ‘unattractive submission’ that Grayling had personally lied in his dealings with the Law Society, which he said was without evidence and ‘of no relevance’ to the decision he had to make.

Coppel replied that he had not told the court that Grayling had lied.

Putting the lord chancellor’s case in response to the judicial review application, Eadie said there had been ‘prolonged and intensive engagement’ with the profession and its representative bodies, including the Law Society and the two claimant groups.

The skeleton argument said the ‘lengthy, multi-stage’ consultation process that began in summer 2012 also included two consultation papers and a series of public meetings attended by thousands of practitioners.

Eadie said under the public law principles on the duty to consult it is a matter for the executive to decide how it informs itself on policy decisions – who it consults and on what information.

He said the claimants and profession were well aware, during the consultation process and before the publication of the reports, of the factors and criteria that would be considered by the lord chancellor in determining the number of contracts to be made available.

The four criteria, he said – sufficient supply; sufficient case volume; market agility; and sustainable procurement – were identified in both consultation papers, and comments invited upon them.

The issues considered by the two undisclosed documents – the Otterburn report on the financial state of firms and the KPMG contract modelling report – were precisely those which the claimants knew the lord chancellor was considering. 

Re-opening the consultation, said Eadie, would not have made any difference to the decision ultimately reached, or the basis on which it was reached.

‘In reality, the claimant’s case is that a re-opening of consultation by reference to the reports would have given them the opportunity to reiterate arguments that they had already had the opportunity to make,’ said Eadie. 

‘Neither the Otterburn nor the KPMG report had the slightest impact on the lord chancellor’s stated objective of consolidation,’ said Eadie. ‘The lord chancellor ultimately made a decision – which is not challenged on its merits – to adopt measures to encourage market consolidation.’

At the end of the hearing Burnett said he hoped to have judgment ready ‘as soon as possible’ and ‘all being well’ by the end of the month.

 
 
 
 

Readers’ comments (2)

  • Here is Gazette article 5.9.13 when Mr Grayling ‘abandoned’ PCT. Mr Fluck of The Law Society welcomes PCT being ‘scrapped’.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/grayling-confirms-legal-aid-concessions/5037355.article

    And here is Gazette article of 7.10.13 where Mr Hudson of The Law Society warns that, in fact, PCT might be ressurected if solicitors do not adopt the revised scheme.

    http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/society-warns-pct-could-still-be-resurrected/5038040.article

    I suggest people read both articles, the surrounding information, and make up your own minds. If you believe Mr Grayling has acted honourably throughout, please let me know. You might call it a ‘consultation’, I suppose.

  • This gentlemen is suppose to be the “keeper of the kings conscience” but has also failed to even look after his own. How can we look up to and respect a person such as this. The Chancellor was at first only a chief notary or scribe under the emperor, for he is the chief administrator of justice, next to the sovereign who anciently heard equitable causes himself. All other justices in this kingdom are tried to the strict “rule of law”, in their judgements, but the Chancellor have power to moderate the written law governing his judgement by the law of nature and conscience, having the kings power in these matters he have been called the ‘keeper of the kings conscience”. The Chancellor became a judge to determine petitions to the king and so lets hope to god that this gentlemen mends his ways and repents his sins for all the wrongs that he has done to the people who are suffering because of him. The laws are not there to be abused and to insult the people ‘Wake Up’ mr Grayling

     

Have your say

 Attempted Reblog to my blog going out to 2033 followers.

 My  Two Pence

 We have Judiciary here that is determined NOT to hear our entirely argueable valid and evidence based Evidence. An  Opposition No Eadie QC who is basically singing from the Government  Hymn Sheet, our wonderful John Cooper QC giving it some in the Evidence Department plus others.

 

  This is an example of how Twitter is your best friend when it comes to *watching JR’s* without the delicious need to actually have one’s arse in the Royal Courts of Justice a nice forbidden place for us intrepid and 

naughty non lawyers. Progress in my Case would be actually attending, you can but ask..

 

  Anyone esp Non Lawyers can watch proceedings.

It is a pity to see this story being played out again and again when  we the Campaign has the args.

 

 

 Reblogging (Is this OK?) to my Blog Supporting UK Justice For the Defence a Layman’s Perspective

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s