McCanns v Bennett: 22 August 2012 - The Legal Services Commission change their minds again, it's CIVIL Legal Aid which applies in my case, not Criminal Legal Aid [was: LSC change their minds after 8 months]...Chances of gettting Legal Aid REDUCED

listener wrote:What a mess!

And they give it to someone who "is a junior staff member of a sub-department of the LSC called 'First Assist', which itself is a sub-department of another sub-department of the LSC called 'Community Legal Advice'" to pass on!

A total shambles

(bet they are well paid (by us))!

Nina wrote:

I would find it quite insulting to receive such information from such a junior staff member.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:I'm pleased to hear. If your case isn't about the highest principles of free speech and justice, I don't know what is. I guess you can always expect the McCann's to fight like animals because they're fighting for their liberty and you can expect since they've got money, there will be plenty of people willing to take their shilling. What I don't expect is our legal system to give them an advantage in silencing you simply because they have enough of the general public's money to pay for unequal legal muscle.

listener wrote:

Nina wrote:

I would find it quite insulting to receive such information from such a junior staff member.

Yes - and by the telephone. Not even in print! I guess noone was prepared to sign a letter!

What a disgrace.

Tony Bennett wrote:I have opened a new thread on this matter as I feel that I have - at last - achieved a watershed 'breakthrough' moment, which means I now stand a reasonable chance of securing at least some public funding to be legally represented in this so-far wholly unequal High Court contest between the wealthy McCanns - who can afford to retain the country's most expensive libel lawyers - and myself.

[Previous thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5144p90-mccanns-v-bennett-latest-4-june-2012 ]

You'll all recall that back in April, over three months ago, Carter-Ruck wrote to me informing me that their costs were now (and I quote) 'well over £120,000'.

The Legal Services Commission (LSC), who make decisions on eligibility for Legal Aid on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice (at present, Kenneth Clarke, but may be not for much longer), informed me at 3.10pm on Friday that it has been decided that I should now proceed to seek legal help from Criminal Legal Aid solcitors, i.e those who have an LSC franchise to operate Criminal Legal Aid, not Civil Legal Aid Solictors. That's after more than 8 months of being told flatly by the LSC that I came under their 'Civil Legal Aid' scheme.

I am therefore, effectively, back to Square One, and will now have to begin again the process of contacting lawyers, but, this time, 'crime' lawyers, not 'civil' lawyers. It is inevitably going to delay aranging a date for my trial.

However, the manner in which this decision was communicated to me was highly unsatisfactory.

It came in a 'phone call from a lady called 'Jemma (with a J)' at 3.10pm, Friday (10 August). Jemma, she told me, is a junior staff member of a sub-department of the LSC called 'First Assist', which itself is a sub-department of another sub-department of the LSC called 'Community Legal Advice'.

I asked her when and by whom this momentous decision - and reversal of previous decisions - had been made.

She told me: "We [i.e. 'First Assist'] got it in an e-mail from LSC Head Office at 102 Petty France last Friday [3 August], but I am not at liberty to say who sent it to me".

I have now, in an e-mail sent today, asked LSC's Chief Executive, Mr Matthew Coats, to put his decision clearly to me in writing. I have also of course raised a formal complaint about why it took the LSC 8 months and 8 days before recognising that they had got this wrong.

Under the Criminal Legal Aid scheme, it looks like I will be required to make a significant contribution towards any legal help received from public funds. I have never queried or disputed that for one moment.

The real point is this. This country - the UK - allows the wealthy and powerful to spend vast amounts of money to slience their critics, by using the device of a libel claim. In the vast majority of cases, defendants have to give in, because they have no chance of matching the legal resources of the wealthy and powerful.

But the European Court of Human Rights, based especially on Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights [the right to a fair trial in all civil and criminal cases], has frequently issued these strong decisions, binding on all member countries (which includes the UK):

1. Anyone facing a term of imprisonment MUST have legal representation, and

2. In ALL trials, the defendant must be given 'equality of arms' with the claimant - and this of course includes libel actions.

I have raised these ECHR decisions with the LSC in correspondence. Maybe this is why they have now, suddenly, and after 8 months, changed their minds.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

aiyoyo wrote on the previous thread:

Since this is an exceptional case where a civil filing can end up with criminal punishment, and since even the LSC displayed (so far) inept knowledge about their own legal aid structure and system, and having advised TB wrongly, not once but twice, what are the chances that their next advice would at best be inaccurate and at worst be downright negligence and dereliction of fiduciary duty.

Either way it seems to me that they (LSC) haven't a clue how to handle TB's application and the LSC personnel are just passing this ball (so to speak) from one person to another hoping the buck stops with someone else to avoid accountability.

Since elements in this case are so grey that they can or inevitably will spill over to the next category, it would mean that it cannot be neatly classified as "this" or "that" meaning strictly "civil" or strictly "criminal" - then logically speaking, shouldn't TB be accorded a complete and total legal financial aid for defence regardless how LSC want to define/classify the case?

The McCanns filed it under civil defamation yet hoped for criminal punishment so logically either they shouldn't be allowed to take full advantage of the stupid legal system - or TB should be granted equal legal representation as them - i.e. be granted legal aid for both categories - simple as.

Ultimately if LSC's advice to TB is wrong they will have to answer for it.


REPLY: Thank you, aiyoyo, and thanks once again for your many words of support and advice on this matter on this forum over the past 2 years. I think many of your comments above are very close to the truth. Your suggestion of people in the LSC 'passing the buck' does seem to be borne out by 'Jemma', from an LSC call centre 'somewhere in the Midlands' being the one chosen to tell me that the LSC have been 100% wrong about this for eight months in a row.

justathought wrote:...be interesting to see which firms are willing to take on your case.
I hope legal firms do not feel reluctant to take the case on, due to the fear of CR and going against the Establishment machine

Tony Bennett wrote:

justathought wrote:...be interesting to see which firms are willing to take on your case.
I hope legal firms do not feel reluctant to take the case on, due to the fear of CR and going against the Establishment machine

Hmmm. I think they might be. After all, Carter-Ruck used to boast that they were 'the nation's most feared libel lawyers. I assume no-one has ever protested to the Advertising Standards Authority against that somewhat extravagant (but maybe true) claim. Who knows, maybe they're not just feared by ordinary mortals who get a libel writ from the wealthy and powerful, but by many others as well?

ufercoffy wrote:So the LSC and Carter Ruck have both given you wrong information?

Er, you may recall that way back in the past (early 2010), Carter-Ruck told me that it was libellous to refer to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (as I had done) as 'a complete mystery'. Unfortunately for their reputation, two weeks later, Clarence Mitchell, speaking as the McCanns' mouthpiece, used the exact same words (maybe he 'stole' them from me?), and so gave his name to what has now become by a wide margin the most-read Madeleine McCann forum in the world. That's the trouble, really...you just can't rely on the legal advice of Carter-Ruck any more.

You have experience of the legal system, being a former solicitor. What hope is there for those of us who, say, work as a freelance entrapment photojournalist and have no knowledge of the legal system at all? We'd be a bit stuffed really wouldn't we?

You've made a very good point there

By the way, Tony, are you still calling erm Jo, Peter, Mike Gunnill to court as a witness?

In one word, YES

Is that why he still visits here, to look up old stuff?

Curiosity killed the cat

listener wrote:So, as they now admit the LSC gave you false information, would they now be liable to compensate you for any expenses you have incurred recently in seeking 'criminal' representation?

Tony Bennett wrote:

listener wrote:So, as they now admit the LSC gave you false information, would they now be liable to compensate you for any expenses you have incurred recently in seeking 'criminal' representation?

No. As yet, since I have not been able to make a formal application for either Civil or Criminal Aid because of constant misinformation from the LSC, there is really nothing to claim for, BUT if I succeed in getting Legal Aid, there could conceivably be a valid claim for any additional cost, yes. The main consequence is that this will lead to further delay - and to further legal costs by Carter-Ruck [the McCanns' costs in other words], which I may have to pay towards if I lose.