The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

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 Mm11

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 Regist10

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

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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 Empty 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

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.08.12 10:55

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.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by listener on 12.08.12 12:14

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 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 173510

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

Posts : 569
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by hentie on 12.08.12 12:24

Really great news Tony!

This has become a battle for you on many levels not just in Madeleine's and other children's interests.

But then, the McCann's have caused the tragedy of Madeleine, their daughter, to have terrible effects on many.

So very sad that the effects of the ripples of their disgraceful actions and attitude have been allowed to go unchecked.

One hurdle jumped Tony, may it be the first of many for you!
hentie
hentie
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 755
Join date : 2009-11-26

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by Nina on 12.08.12 12:25

@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 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 1255849920

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

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

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina
Nina

Posts : 2861
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 76

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by listener on 12.08.12 12:31

@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.
listener
listener

Posts : 569
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 12.08.12 13:42

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.
ProfessorPPlum
ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by aiyoyo on 12.08.12 19:51

@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.

Err I think it's more accurate to say they're fighting for their credibility since liberty of free speech is not denied or forced on them, and they proved very adept at using it over excessively to hide the truth, and using mostly OPM (other people's money) to suppress their critics from having equal fundamental human right to liberty of free speech! I think that is so WRONG.



aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by aiyoyo on 12.08.12 20:15

@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.

Geez, who would dare put signature to a letter when it was pointed out to them they made not one but two mistakes in the process of this application and this is just the start. That junior staff member from the lowest hierarchy was just her bad luck to be used as messenger who likely didn't know head or tail about this ongoing saga that lasted so far a few months short of a year.

What should have been very simple and relatively straight forward has turned out to be a farcical. Someone in the higher hierarchy if not the highest should stand out and tender an apology letter to TB acknowledging the organisation's mistakes, at the same time ensuring TB that no further mistake will incur or recur, but NO, it seems no one wants to be accountable for this.

It seems they don't or won't learn from their mistakes. It is truly a disgrace!

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by justathought on 14.08.12 22:32

@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.


Mr Bennett
I wish you good fortune as to finding CLA legal assistance. 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
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

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 Empty The fear factor

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.08.12 22:52

@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?

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by PeterMac on 14.08.12 23:17

They are feared only because of their ludicrously exorbitant fees, which completely alter the game. If anyone takes them on and loses, they forfeit everything.
If they win. . . well what ?
They win. Damages and costs on a normal scale are decided by the Taxing Master, and that is it.
It is never reported in the press, the clients pay up some privately agreed fees and off they go again.
IMHO. Obviously !

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10654
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by justathought on 15.08.12 19:00

@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?

Mr Bennett
I will be careful what I write and previously feel you misconstrued a post which i made as to you being a good position. but the news must be positive despite the delay and fact that you may still face quite an uphill battle. i am sure you will choose wisely and find a firm which will represent you in a proper and professional manner. even if it involves you spending scarce time and resources to do so.
you also appear to have a unique opportunity to get a personal insight as to how CLA works in practice in the UK. how keen legal firms are to represent you. especially with C-R being involved in the case.
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

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 Empty A SINCERE apology from the LSC

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.08.12 13:37

Today, after seeking final written clarification from Matthew Coats, Head of the Legal Services Commission, as to whether I do in fact come within the Criminal Legal Aid scheme (as suggested by their letter of 3 August), I have received a letter from his assistant, Ms Sarah Elwin, telling me that that letter of 3 August was WRONG.

In fact, I am now told authoritatively, my case comes within CIVIL Legal Aid, not Criminal.

Carter-Ruck had in fact sent me a 'To Whom it May Concern' letter, intended for me to show prospective Solicitors, telling them that my case came under Criminal, not Civil Legal Aid.

Both the LSC letter of 3 August and the Carter-Ruck letter of a similar date were WRONG.

The reason, apparently, is because it all depends on WHAT TYPE of contempt of Court it is alleged has been committed.

If you commit a contempt IN THE FACE OF THE COURT, then you are entitled to seek help (subject to your financial circumstances) under the CRIMINAL Legal Aid scheme. 'In the face of the Court' means on the Court premises e.g. punching your solicitor or a witness, using foul language to a judge, trying to escape from court, d overpowering a court official, using a hidden tape-recorder etc. etc.

If your alleged contempt of Court, however, is committed AWAY FROM COURT'S PREMISES, then apparently Civil Legal Aid applies.

So the last few weeks have been a complete waste of time, and it's back to seeking Solicitors who have a franchise for Civil Legal Aid (and there aren't many of those left these days).

That's disappointing, BUT...

I received a 'sincere' apology...

AND

...have been told that procedures are being revised to ensure that people are no longer mis-advised by LSC headquarters about which of the two schemes a person comes under.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by ufercoffy on 22.08.12 13:58

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

By the way, Tony, are you still calling erm Jo, Peter, Mike Gunnill to court as a witness? Is that why he still visits here, to look up old stuff? titter

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked
ufercoffy
ufercoffy

Posts : 1653
Join date : 2010-01-04

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.08.12 14:19

@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? 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 82678

Curiosity killed the cat

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by jd on 22.08.12 14:28

I find it astounding that both LSC and Carter Ruck have been giving you wrong information!!! Another wow! moment. Aren't these bodies 'professional' and the highest in their field of expertise and knowledge. To me this is laughable and they only operate under an illusion of a 'reputation' being the most feared libel lawyers. Its not often they actually go to court anyway from what I have seen

Mind you, representing Liam Gallagher against his brother Noel for not conceding that Liam had laryngitis – and not just a hangover – when he cancelled their final gig at the Chelmsford V festival shows how ridiculous libel law has become. Liam Gallaghers reputation precedes him and what Oasis was built upon and made them the band they were about

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd
jd

Posts : 4151
Join date : 2011-07-22

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 22.08.12 14:39

It is absolutely disgraceful that you have been fed incorrect advice . IMO, a stiff letter of complaint to the Law Society and/or any publication or organisation that may be able to stop expensive lawyers giving out wrong information, thus unnecessarily compounding the long and stressful wait for people like yourselves. There might even be some offence they are guilty of which nullifies any action taken by themselves.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by listener on 22.08.12 17:37

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?
listener
listener

Posts : 569
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.08.12 18:04

@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.

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by justathought on 22.08.12 18:43

@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.

Mr Bennett

All very bizarre and an unaccptable explaination as to why with all the time the LSC had to deliberate. you were given false information.

as to you "...have been told that procedures are being revised to ensure that people are no longer mis-advised by LSC headquarters about which of the two schemes a person comes under". do LSC not mean policies will be revised. as proceedures should not have caused a wrong decision to be made.
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by aiyoyo on 22.08.12 19:10

Back to square one after all this time, how bizarre!

Cant you complain to a regulator?
How can LSC give out misinformation time after time then justify their repeated errors by simply saying they will review internal procedures meanwhile you were inconvenienced in the process.

What about CR's letter in relation to ECHR's rule that states defendant must have equality of arms? How does that square up?

Hope it all works out in the end for you, and BEST OF LUCK.




aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

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 Empty Re: 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

Post by justathought on 22.08.12 20:00

Mr Bennett
Carter-Ruck had in fact sent me a 'To Whom it May Concern' letter, intended for me to show prospective Solicitors, telling them that my case came under Criminal, not Civil Legal Aid.
Who told CR. why did they send out such a letter to you prior to official confirmation?
avatar
justathought

Posts : 141
Join date : 2012-07-06

Back to top Go down

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 Empty how did asil nadir get 5million pounds of legal aid?

Post by tigger on 23.08.12 13:39

Article in the DM today by Rebecca Camber and Colin Fernandez. It's in the hard copy not on the internet site yet as far as I can see.

However, would these journalists be interested to hear about your legal aid 'adventures?'. Might be useful to make contact?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
tigger
tigger

Posts : 8114
Join date : 2011-07-20

http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum