Given the importance of the case, and that I have written about it before twice, I thought I should probably comment on the decision that there was no case to answer in the Hillsborough prosecution of SYP’s then solicitor, Peter Metcalf. The judge’s reasoning can be found here, alongside the press summary, and the important … Continue reading Hillsborough III: No case to answer
A quick post this one and then I have to go and do other things for a bit. Readers might be interested in an example piece of evidence which, for me, crystallises the problems at work. It shows the ways in which failures to prosecute ethically may link to failures to govern the company ethically … Continue reading Post Office III: Pleas Displease Me
A few extra points on what questions are posed the Post Office case now I have had a chance to dig into the detail a bit. The Court of Appeal praised the diligence and thoroughness of the post-conviction disclosure carried out in relation to the appeals (paragraph 61 of the Hamilton judgment). I think it … Continue reading Post Office II: Contempt, recusal, culture
Hamilton and Others-v-Post-Office  EWCA Crim 577 is a pretty gut wrenching tale of corporate misdeeds. All the wrong doing is rather faceless at the minute, but it cannot – one hopes – remain that way for too much longer. For reasons which I will make clear some of those faces will very likely be … Continue reading The Post Office ‘where were the lawyers?’ post
The FT have prised open some details on a case last heard in 2019 which illustrates some of the interesting problemns inherent in independent investigations. In this case, Ms A claimed unfair constructive dismissal and sex and disability discrimination, which included an allegation that she was raped by a UBS employee and failures in the … Continue reading Independence MsA takes
The profession has certain stories it tells itself which are probably not true. One such is exposed by an interesting piece of US research by Listokin and Noonan (published here and available without a paywall, I think, here. That story is that, “lawyers are uniquely unhappy”, in particular that they suffer higher levels of mental … Continue reading Sloshed not sick?
The travails of Duncan Lewis, Stephanie Harrison QC and the rest of her team, in the R (DVP & Others) v SSHD EWHC 606 (Admin) [the DVP case] can be seen as grist to the Government's anti-activist lawyers mill. It's a toe-curling judgment. I am going to talk about the facts of the case at … Continue reading Candour in Context: who’s activism should we spotlight?
An interesting paper by Andy Boon and Avis Whyte has been published (paywalled I suspect) on SDT cases. the authors have painstakingly assembled data to be compared across three periods: 1994 to 1996 (collected by Davies), 2008 (with Boon, Whyte and Sherr) and 2015. They point to a strange failure of SDT case volumes to … Continue reading Discipline Data: women, the young, and the old, but in what order?
There are a number of ethical issues posed by the PCP v Barclays case which Richard summarised yesterday. If you’ve read the summary you will know that two sets of transactions are in issue. 1. The $3bn loan made by Barclays to Qatar’s Ministry of Finance as part of a significant equity injection to shore … Continue reading PCP v Barclays: The Dirty Work of Lawyering?
Amanda Stavely has had half a last laugh in her unsuccessful litigation against Barclays. She lost on causation but the court found material dishonesty on the part of her nemesis, Roger Jenkins, former Chairman of the Bank’s Middle Eastern business. The judgment is a monster (PCP Capital Partners v Barclays  EWHC 307 (Comm) at … Continue reading Something smelly at Barclays…