Rate-Your-Solicitor.com Forum

A disgrace in 1931, and now
Formation of a national government would be an attack on democracy and give succour to fascism
Comments (158)
Tony Benn
The Guardian, Thursday 11 December 2008

The argument that we might have to consider a national government to deal with the economic crisis, as put in these pages on Monday by Frank Field, is the clearest indication that capitalism and democracy are incompatible.

It is of course not a new argument - Ramsay MacDonald, then Labour prime minister, followed that course in 1931, joining with the Tories and the Liberals and calling an election in which only 51 Labour MPs survived. That national government continued until 1940 and was directly responsible for the appalling suffering during the slump that followed, with mass unemployment and destitution for the many thrown out of work.

Oswald Mosley, once a Labour MP and minister, responded by setting up the New party, which developed into the British Union of Fascists; he used the Jews as scapegoats in much the same way as some MPs today seem ready to blame immigrants. Stanley Baldwin, who succeeded MacDonald, then followed a policy of appeasement towards Hitler and it was only when Churchill came to power in 1940 and Labour entered into the wartime coalition that this period ended.

In 1931 MacDonald described the party he had helped to found as "Bolshevism gone mad". He swept to power while many of his old colleagues, including my father, who had been in MacDonald's cabinet, were defeated.

A national government in peacetime amounts to a declaration that democracy cannot be maintained if market demands are so strong that no party can expect to challenge them and survive.

During the 1930s Labour did survive, increasing its seats by 100 in the 1935 election. When the manifesto was drafted for the postwar election in 1945, it contained a very clear statement about the causes of that prewar crisis: "The sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men." This manifesto won an overwhelming majority and gave the party the support it needed to establish the welfare state and the NHS, and public ownership of gas, electricity, water and transport.

This formed the basis of a broad political consensus, until the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She launched a counter-revolution against democracy, to break the power of trade unionism, strangle local government, and launch a programme of privatisation - all designed to put the market back in charge. Tony Blair's New Labour project was based on his belief that the only way to win an election was to adopt those policies, and it should be no surprise that Thatcher described New Labour as "her greatest achievement".

In this sense the present economic crisis is actually a crisis of democracy as the market has taken from parliament the power to shape the policy of the nation. Elected leaders, such as George Bush and the prime minister, have been left the role of commentators on the crisis and suppliers of endless cash in an attempt to save a system that failed us.

If a national government is formed, it will constitute a direct attack on democracy. Electors will be denied any choice in government policies, and it will be no surprise if the BNP seeks to benefit from the crisis, as Mosley did, by finding its own scapegoat. The Labour movement will be in opposition, and the various sectarian left groups that waste so much time fighting each other might realise that they have to work with that movement to provide relevant alternatives.

We should therefore all be grateful to Frank Field for speaking up in favour of a national government. If it happens, we shall be ready to reassert the importance of democracy and what it can offer us.

• Tony Benn is a former Labour MP and cabinet minister
tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk

PS. Could it not be argued that just as Tony Benn states that ‘Capitalism and Democracy’ are incompatible, that ‘financial crisis’ caused by "The sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men."

Is there not also in Ireland ‘a concentration of too much legal powers in the hands of  too few’ the Solicitors/Barristers/Judges are accountable only to their elite private clubs of the Law Society and Bar Council?

Are not the ‘Law Society and Bar Council’  also incompatible with democracy? J.F.

Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 1339 (N.I. 11)
The Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 - continued

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

back to previous page

 


PART II


ACTIONS OF CONTRACT AND TORT AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS
Part II subject to Part IV
    3.    This Part has effect subject to Part IV.
Time limit: actions founded on contract, etc.
    4.    Subject to Articles 5, 7 and 9, the following actions may not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued—
(a) an action founded on simple contract;
(b) an action founded on quasi-contract;
(c) an action to enforce an award where the arbitration agreement is not under seal;
(d) an action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any statutory provision, other than—
(ii) a debt created by Article 25(2) or 474 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986[13]; or
(iii) an amount recoverable under section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978[14].
Time limit: actions on certain loans
    5.—(1)  Subject to paragraph (3), Article 4(a ) does not bar the right of action on a contract of loan to which this Article applies.

    (2)  This Article applies to any contract of loan which—
(a) does not provide for repayment of the debt on or before a fixed or determinable date; and
(b) does not effectively (whether or not it purports to do so) make the obligation to repay the debt conditional on a demand for repayment made by or on behalf of the creditor or on any other matter,
except where in connection with taking the loan the debtor enters into any collateral obligation to pay the amount of the debt or any part of it (as, for example, by delivering a promissory note as security for the debt) on terms which would exclude the application of this Article to the contract of loan if they applied directly to repayment of the debt.

    (3)  Where a demand in writing for repayment of the debt under a contract of loan to which this Article applies is made by or on behalf of the creditor (or, where there are joint creditors, by or on behalf of any one of them) Article 4(a ) thereupon applies as if the cause of action to recover the debt had accrued on the date on which the demand was made.

    (4)  In this Article "promissory note" has the same meaning as in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882[15].

Time limit: certain actions founded on tort
    6.—(1)  Subject to paragraph (2) and to Articles 7 and 9 and 11 to 13, an action founded on tort may not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

    (2)  Subject to Article 51, an action for damages for libel or slander may not be brought after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Time limit: actions for personal injuries
    7.—(1)  This Article applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person.

    (2)  Articles 4 and 6 do not apply to an action to which this Article applies.

    (3)  Subject to Article 50, an action to which this Article applies may not be brought after the expiration of the period specified in paragraphs (4) and (5).

    (4)  Except where paragraph (5) applies, that period is three years from—
(a) the date on which the cause of action accrued, or
(b) the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured.

    (5)  If the person injured dies before the expiration of the period in paragraph (4), the period as respects the cause of action surviving for the benefit of the estate of the deceased by virtue of section 14 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937[16] is three years from—
(a) the date of death; or
(b) the date of the personal representative's knowledge,
whichever is the later.

    (6)  Subject to paragraph (7), in this Article and in Article 9, references to a person's date of knowledge are references to the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts—
(a) that the injury in question was significant; and
(b) that that injury was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence, nuisance or breach of duty; and
(c) the identity of the defendant; and
(d) if it is alleged that the act or omission was that of a person other than the defendant, the identity of that person and the additional facts supporting the bringing of an action against the defendant,
and knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence, nuisance or breach of duty is irrelevant.

    (7)  In Article 8 and in Article 9 so far as that Article applies to an action by virtue of Article 9(1) of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987[17] (death caused by defective product) references to a person's date of knowledge are references to the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts—
(a) such facts about the damage caused by the defect as would lead a reasonable person who had suffered such damage to consider it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment; and
(b) that the damage was wholly or partly attributable to the facts and circumstances alleged to constitute the defect; and
(c) the identity of the defendant;
but, in determining the date on which a person first had such knowledge there is to be disregarded both the extent (if any) of that person's knowledge on any date of whether particular facts or circumstances would or would not, as a matter of law, constitute a defect and, in a case relating to loss of or damage to property, any knowledge which that person had on a date on which he had no right of action by virtue of Part II of that Order in respect of the loss or damage.

    (8)  For the purposes of paragraph (6) an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

    (9)  For the purposes of paragraph (6) a person's knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire—
(a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him; or
(b) from facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek,
but a person is not to be fixed under this paragraph with knowledge of a fact ascertainable only with the help of expert advice so long as he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and, where appropriate, to act on) that advice.

    (10)  For the purposes of this Article and Article 8—
(a) "personal representative" includes any person who is or has been a personal representative of the deceased, including an executor who has not proved the will (whether or not he has renounced probate); and
(b) regard is to be had to any knowledge acquired by any such person while a personal representative or previously.

    (11)  If there is more than one personal representative and their dates of knowledge are different, paragraph (5)(b ) is to be read as referring to the earliest of those dates.

Time limit: actions in respect of defective products
    8.—(1)  This Article applies to an action for damages by virtue of any provision of Part II of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987[18].

    (2)  The time limits fixed by Articles 4 to 7 do not apply to an action to which this Article applies.

    (3)  An action to which this Article applies may not be brought after the expiration of ten years from the relevant time, within the meaning of Article 7 of that Order of 1987; and this paragraph operates to extinguish a right of action and does so whether or not that right of action had accrued, or time under the following provisions of this Order had begun to run, at the end of that period of ten years.

    (4)  Subject to paragraph (5), an action to which this Article applies in which the damages claimed by the plaintiff consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person or loss of or damage to any property, may not be brought after the expiration of three years from whichever is the later of—
(a) the date on which the cause of action accrued; and
(b) the date of knowledge of the injured person or, in the case of loss of or damage to property, the date of knowledge of the plaintiff or (if earlier) of any person in whom his cause of action was previously vested.

    (5)  If, in a case where the damages claimed by the plaintiff consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person, the injured person died before the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph (4), that paragraph has effect as respects the cause of action surviving for the benefit of his estate by virtue of section 14 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937[19] as if for the reference to that period there were substituted a reference to three years from—
(a) the date of death; or
(b) the date of the personal representative's knowledge,
whichever is the later.

    (6)  If there is more than one personal representative and their dates of knowledge are different, paragraph (5)(b ) is to be read as referring to the earliest of those dates.

    (7)  Expressions used in this Article or Article 7(6) to (10) and in Part II of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987[20] have the same meanings in this Article or that Article as in that Part; and Article 4(1) of that Order (Part II to be construed as enacted for the purpose of complying with the product liability Directive) appliesfor the purpose of construing this Article and the following provisions of this Order so far as they relate to an action by virtue of any provision of that Part as it applies for the purpose of construing that Part.

Time limit: actions under Fatal Accidents (NI) Order 1977
    9.—(1)  This Article has effect subject to Article 50.

    (2)  An action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977[21] may not be brought if the death occurred when the person injured could no longer maintain an action and recover damages in respect of the injury (whether because of a time limit in this Order or in any other statutory provision, or any other reason).

Where any such action by the injured person would have been barred by the time limit in Article 7 or 8, no account is to be taken of the possibility of that time limit being overridden under Article 50.

    (3)  An action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 may not be brought after the expiration of three years from—
(a) the date of death; or
(b) the date of knowledge of the person for whose benefit the action is brought,
whichever is the later.

    (4)  Paragraph (3) does not apply to an action for which a time limit is fixed by any other limitation provision, and Articles 4 to 7 do not apply to an action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.

    (5)  An action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 is one to which Articles 48 (extension of time limit: disability) and 73 (new claims in pending actions) apply, but otherwise Parts IV and V do not apply to the action.

Dependants subject to different time limits
    10.—(1)  This Article applies where there is more than one person for whose benefit an action under the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 is brought.

    (2)  Article 9(3)(b ) is to be applied separately to each of them, and if that would debar one or more of them, but not all, the court must direct that any person who would be so debarred is to be excluded from those for whom the action is brought unless it is shown that if the action were brought exclusively for the benefit of that person it would not be defeated by a defence of limitation (whether in consequence of Article 48 (extension of time limit: disability), or an agreement between the parties not to raise the defence, or otherwise).

Special time limit for negligence actions where facts relevant to cause of action are not known at date of accrual
    11.—(1)  This Article applies to any action for damages for negligence, other than one to which Article 7 applies, where the starting date for reckoning the time limit under paragraph (3)(b ) falls after the date on which the cause of action accrued.

    (2)  An action to which this Article applies may not be brought after the expiration of the period applicable in accordance with paragraph (3).

    (3)  That period is either—
(a) six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b) three years from the starting date as defined by paragraph (4), if that period expires later than the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (a ).

    (4)  For the purposes of this Article, the starting date for reckoning the time limit under paragraph (3)(b ) is the earliest date on which the plaintiff or any person in whom the cause of action was vested before him first had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage and a right to bring such an action.

    (5)  In paragraph (4) "the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage" means knowledge both—
(a) of the material facts about the damage in respect of which damages are claimed; and
(b) of the other facts relevant to the current action mentioned in paragraph (7).

    (6)  For the purposes of paragraph (5)(a ), the material facts about the damage are such facts about the damage as would lead a reasonable person who had suffered such damage to consider it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

    (7)  The other facts referred to in paragraph (5)(b ) are—
(a) that the damage was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence; and
(b) the identity of the defendant; and
(c) if it is alleged that the act or omission was that of a person other than the defendant, the identity of that person and the additional facts supporting the bringing of an action against the defendant.

    (8)  Knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence is irrelevant for the purposes of paragraph (5).

    (9)  For the purposes of this Article a person's knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire—
(a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him; or
(b) from facts ascertainable by him with the help of appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek;
but a person is not to be fixed under this paragraph with knowledge of a fact ascertainable only with the help of expert advice so long as he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and, where appropriate, to act on) that advice.

Overriding time limit for negligence actions not involving personal injuries
    12.—(1)  An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which Article 7 applies, may not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date (or, if more than one, from the last of the dates) on which there occurred any act or omission—
(a) which is alleged to constitute negligence; and
(b) to which the damage in respect of which damages are claimed is alleged to be attributable (in whole or in part).

    (2)  This Article bars the right of action in a case to which paragraph (1) applies notwithstanding that—
(a) the cause of action has not yet accrued; or
(b) where Article 11 applies to the action, the date which is for the purposes of that Article the starting date for reckoning the period mentioned in paragraph (3)(b ) of that Article has not yet occurred,
before the end of the time limit fixed by this Article.

Time limit for recovering contribution
    13.—(1)  Where under section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978[22] any person becomes entitled to a right to recover contribution in respect of any damage from any other person, no action to recover contribution by virtue of that right may be brought after the end of the period of two years from the date on which that right accrued.

    (2)  For the purposes of this Order the date on which a right to recover contribution in respect of any damage accrues to any person (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant date") is to be ascertained as follows, that is to say—
(a) if the person in question is held liable in respect of that damage by a judgment given in any civil proceedings, or an award made on any arbitrarion, the relevant date is the date on which the judgment is given, or the date of the award, as the case may be;
(b) if, in any case not falling within sub-paragraph (a ), the person in question makes or agrees to make any payment to one or more persons in compensation for that damage (whether he admits any liability in respect of the damage or not), the relevant date is the earliest date on which the amount to be paid by him is agreed between him (or his representative) and the person (or each of the persons, as the case may be) to whom the payment is to be made;
and for the purposes of this paragraph no account is to be taken of any judgment or award given or made on appeal in so far as it varies the amount of damages awarded against the person in question.

Time limit: actions for an account
    14.    An action for an account may not be brought after the expiration of any time limit under this Order which is applicable to the claim which is the basis of the duty to account.
Time limit: actions founded on instruments under seal etc.
    15.    The following actions may not be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the cause of action accrued—
(a) an action upon an instrument under seal other than an action upon an instrument under seal to recover—
(i) arrears of a rentcharge or of a conventional rent; or
(ii) any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge; or
(iii) arrears of interest in respect of any sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge; or
(iv) arrears of an annuity charged on personal property;
(b) an action to enforce an award where the arbitration agreement is under seal;
(c) an action to recover a debt created by Article 25(2) or 474 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986[23].
Time limit: actions upon judgments and for arrears of interest on judgment debts
    16.—(1)  An action may not be brought upon a judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

    (2)  No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt may be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

Time limit: successive conversions and extinction of title of owner of converted goods
    17.—(1)  Where—
(a) any cause of action in respect of the conversion of a chattel has accrued to any person, and
(b) before he recovers possession of the chattel, a further conversion takes place,
subject to Article 28, no action may be brought in respect of the further conversion after the expiration of six years from the accrual of the cause of action in respect of the original conversion.

    (2)  Where—
(a) any such cause of action has accrued to any person and the period fixed for bringing that action has expired; and
(b) that person has not during that period recovered possession of the chattel,
the title of that person to the chattel is, subject to Article 28, extinguished.

Time limit: theft
    18.—(1)  The right of any person from whom a chattel is stolen to bring an action in respect of the theft—
(a) is not subject to the time limits under Articles 6(1) and 17(1), but
(b) if his title to the chattel is extinguished under Article 17(2), he may not bring an action in respect of a theft preceding the loss of his title, unless the theft in question preceded the conversion from which time began to run for the purposes of Article 17(2).

    (2)  Paragraph (1) applies to any conversion related to the theft of a chattel as it applies to the theft of a chattel; and, except as provided below, every conversion following the theft of a chattel before the person from whom it is stolen recovers possession of it is to be treated for the purposes of this Article as related to the theft. If anyone purchases the stolen chattel in good faith neither the purchase nor any conversion following it is to be treated as related to the theft.

    (3)  Any cause of action accruing in respect of the theft or any conversion related to the theft of a chattel to any person from whom the chattel is stolen is to be disregarded for the purpose of applying Article 17(1) or (2) to his case.

    (4)  Where, in any action brought in respect of the conversion of a chattel, it is proved that the chattel was stolen from the plaintiff or anyone through whom he claims, it is to be presumed that any conversion following the theft is related to the theft unless the contrary is shown.

    (5)  In this Article "theft" includes—
(a) any conduct outside Northern Ireland which would be theft if committed in Northern Ireland; and
(b) obtaining any chattel (in Northern Ireland or elsewhere) in the circumstances described in section 15(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969[24] (obtaining by deception) or by blackmail within the meaning of section 20 of that Act;
and references in this Article to a chattel being "stolen" are to be construed accordingly.

Savings (Part II)
    19.—(1)  This Part does not apply to any claim—
(a) for specific performance of a contract; or
(b) for an injunction or for other equitable relief,
except in so far as any provision of this Part may be applied by the court by analogy in like manner as the corresponding enactment repealed by the Statute of Limitations was applied before the commencement of that Act.

    (2)  Paragraph (1) does not affect the operation of Article 14.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:


[13] 1986 NI 6 back

[14] 1978 c. 47 back

[15] 1882 c. 61 back

[16] 1937 c. 9 (N.I.) back

[17] 1987 NI 20 back

[18] 1987 NI 20 back

[19] 1937 c. 9 (N.I.) back

[20] 1987 NI 20 back

[21] 1977 NI 18 back

[22] 1978 c. 47 back

[23] 1986 NI 6 back

[24] 1969 c. 16 (N.I.) back
   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other UK SIs | Home | National Assembly for Wales Statutory Instruments | Scottish Statutory Instruments | Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland | Her Majesty's Stationery Office 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We welcome your comments on this site  © Crown copyright 1989  Prepared 20th September 2000 

PS This is the specific section that I presented as a submission to Judge David McFarland:-

Time limit: certain actions founded on tort
    6.—(1)  Subject to paragraph (2) and to Articles 7 and 9 and 11 to 13, an action founded on tort may not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

This paragraph is specific. Of course Statute Law may not apply in Omagh? J.F.

The Sentinel, January 14, 2009 page 12 NEWS

Widow of murder victim ‘insulted’ by offer

THE WIDOW of a Londonderry murder victim has said she is “insulted” after being offered £8,500 compensation for the loss of her husband.

Eileen Gilchrist, whose spouse Jim was brutally killed in September 2005, says the offer from the Compensation Agency is a “Slap in the face” to the memory of her husband.

Mrs. Gilchrist also criticised the “thousands of pounds” being spent on her husbands killers in prison. In the summer three men were jailed at Londonderry Crown Court for involvement in the killing of renowned blues musician Jim Gilchrist who was set upon and was thrown into the Foyle, where he drowned. The couple would have celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary later this month.

Speaking about the compensation offer, Eileen Gilchrist said: “The way I see it, those boys who killed Jim are in prison watching TV, going to the gym every day, getting free medical treatment and having everything they want. How much does that cost?”

“And, here I am being offered just £8,500. Is that really what Jim’s life was worth?”

“Money won’t bring Jim back – we know that. But we lost so much.”

“We’ve been robbed of Jim and Jim has been robbed of his tow grandchildren who were born after his death.”

“The family can’t believe that such an offer was made. They can’t believe that their father’s life was worth so little.”
A spokesperson from the Northern Ireland Office said it would not comment on compensation offers made to individuals.

Mrs. Said: “I haven’t got a life anymore.”

“Jim would have been retiring this year and we had made all our plans to go travelling together around the world.”

“That won’t be happening now. We’ll never get over this.”
PS. This insulting compensation offer for the loss of her husband Jim Gilchrist is incredible against the context of such large ‘Legal Aid’ payments to Solicitors and Barristers as reported in a local Northern Ireland newspaper.

How come there is money for the ‘Solicitors and Barristers’ depending the ‘criminals’ and then such an insulting financial compensation offer to Mrs. Gilchrist and innocent victim?

Dungannon Observer Friday 5th December 2008 Front page: £10m in taxpayers’ money paid out. Almost £10 million was paid out to solicitors’ firms across Tyrone, Armagh and Derry in a single year as part of a multi-million pound legal bill for criminal and civil court cases, it has emerged. The staggering bill which relates to the 2005/06 financial year formed part of an overall £116 million legal aid package which was paid out right across Northern Ireland in a two year period, new figures have revealed…..Locally some £2.3million in legal fees was shared between eight solicitors’ firms in County Tyrone during the 2005/06 year. Omagh based firm Patrick Fahy and Co. were paid £590,405 during the 12-month period, while John Fahy and Co., which is based in Strabane, received £486,211 in legal aid payments.

Joe Ferris wrote:

The Irish News Wednesday January 7th 2009 page 8
Forgery charge lawyer goes free.

A County Down solicitor charged with forgery relating to two clients has walked free from court Ann Ervine (51) was to stand trial along with two co-accused on charges relating to legal transactions surrounding the ownership of a house in Saintfield.

After a jury was sworn in, her co-accused – George Ignatius Martin (32) and his wife Mary (45) – pleaded guilty to several offences.

Barrister Charles McKay, prosecuting, said he accepted the pleas.

The lawyer told Mr. Justice Anthony Hart that four charges including two of forgery against Ms. Ervine were now to be “left on the books, not to be proceeded with”.

The solicitor, from Alpine Road in Newtownards and with a practice in Saintfield, was told she was “discharged”.

George and Mary Martin, from Downpatrick  Road in Saintfield, pleaded guilty to two charges of forgery and two of using a false instrument with intent.

Two charges of obtaining property by deception were left on the books, not to be proceeded with.

The charges relate to legal transactions regarding a house on Downpatrick Road that was jointly owned by George  Martin and his elderly mother Annie.

The couple admitted forging a Land Registry Form purported to be signed by Annie Martin and using it to induce the Land Registry to accept it as genuine in December 1997 and again in 2000.

It is understood the 1997 offences relate to Mary Martin’s name being added to the ownership of the house and the 2000 charges to Annie Martin’s name being removed as a joint owner.

Mr. Justice Hart told the couple: “I want to make it clear that the fact you are released on bail should not be no indication of the sentence you will receive.”

The victim in the case is now in her nineties and lives in a nursing home in Belfast.

She was due to give evidence at the trial later this week.

The judge ordered pre-sentence reports to be prepared on George and Mary Martin.

He will hear the plea as Belfast Crown Court on February 6.


PS. I find it strange that ‘George and Mary Martin, from Downpatrick  Road in Saintfield, pleaded guilty to two charges of forgery and two of using a false instrument with intent.’.

How can the solicitor not also be guilty, with respect to the ‘false instrument’ (false legal document)?

Did George and Mary Martin, create the false legal instruments themselves, without any input from the solicitor? J.F.

Last edited by lillies2uk (2009-01-30 10:36:15)

Bernard Madoff avoids jail
·    Ed Pilkington in New York
·    guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 January 2009 19.40 GMT
·    Article history
Bernard Madoff, the Wall Street financier accused of running a massive swindle that fleeced investors of up to $50bn, is to remain in his lavish Manhattan apartment overlooking Central Park after a federal judge today rejected prosecution calls for him to be jailed.

The decision to allow Madoff to stay under house arrest in the $7m penthouse, rather than transfer him to the Metropolitan Correctional Centre in lower Manhattan, astonished and further angered victims of the scandal.

Judge Ronald Ellis refused to revoke his $10m bail, ruling that the prosecution had failed to make its case that Madoff could cause more harm if he remained at large.

But the judge did impose new restrictions that will see all Madoff's mail searched by a security firm before it leaves his building.

An inventory will also be taken of all valuable portable objects in his apartment, which will be checked every two weeks to ensure he is not attempting to dispose of it. The restrictions will apply to both Madoff and his wife.

Madoff was a highly respected Wall Street figure for more than 40 years, at one point holding the post of chairman of the Nasdaq stockmarket. He gained a reputation for earning his clients a remarkably stable and high rate of return.

But last month he was arrested after it was revealed that his financial empire was founded on thin air. He had allegedly been running what is known as a Ponzi scheme — taking in new money to pay the dividends of existing investors, losing up to $50bn and with it the entire life savings of thousands of his clients in the process.

Prosecution lawyers had called on the court to imprison him on the grounds that he broke a court order freezing his assets.

Shortly before Christmas, Madoff posted $1m-worth of jewellery and gifts to friends and family in clear violation of his bail terms. Court papers showed that the items included 13 vintage timepieces, including Tiffany and Cartier diamond watches, an emerald ring, four diamond brooches, two sets of cufflinks and a jade necklace.

The packages were sent by Madoff to his sons, Andrew and Mark, who worked for the family firm, his brother Peter, and his closest friends in New York.

The lead prosecutor, Marc Litt, argued that "the continued release of the defendant presents a danger to the community of additional economic harm and further obstruction of justice".
But Madoff's defence lawyers said the mailings were an innocent mistake: he had sent out family heirlooms and was simply unaware that was in breach of the asset freeze.

Victims and their lawyers reacted angrily to the decision to allow Madoff to remain free. Larry Leif from Palm Beach, Florida, who lost his life savings of $8m, told CNBC: "If I had commited this crime personally, I would be in jail."

Jeffrey Zwerling, a lawyer representing individual and institutional Madoff victims around the world, said his clients would be outraged. "They have just lost their entire life savings, are losing their homes, can no longer pay their health insurance, and here is Madoff living in a triplex overlooking Central Park."

In further evidence of the strange moral universe inhabited by Madoff, the New York Times yesterday revealed that he has been apologising to his neighbours in the East 64th Street block of apartments for the chaos caused by the media camped outside since his arrest.
"Dear neighbours," his letter says, "Please accept my profound apologies for the terrible inconvenience that I have caused over the past weeks. Ruth and I appreciate the support we have received."

PS. Why was this man not remanded in custody so as to prevent him from committing further criminal activity? J.F.

Irish News Tuesday January 27 2009 News Page 14

£400,000 paid to court officials since suspension. By Bimpe Fatogum.

Two suspended senior Court Officials have collected almost £400,000 in pay during a three and a half year investigation into allegations of misconduct.

The probe into a holiday by the Court Service’s former operations chief and former head of procurement as guests on a private yacht of the then managing director of Maybin Support Services began in August 2005.

Since then George Keatley, head of court operations and procurement chief Brian Lowry have been suspended on full pay.

Their jobs have since been “re-designed” and permanently filled.

At the time of the trip Richard Maybin’s firm held a £4.9 million contract for court service security.

The alleged misconduct is also the focus of a separate independent inquiry into the Court Service’s policy on accepting gifts and hospitality. 

Photograph with the caption ANGRY: George Keatley.

The Court Service said the investigation is being carried out as quickly as possible.

However, it is coming under pressure to conclude the probe, which has seen the men collect around £360,000 during their precautionary suspension.

Contributions are still being made towards their civil service pensions.

SDLP justice spokesman Alban Maginness said it is “unacceptable” that the case should drag on for so long.

“It is absolutely extraordinary that after three and a half years an investigation of this kind has not been completed to the satisfaction of the employer and the employee,” he said.

“From the point of view of the public it is entirely unsatisfactory that this process has not been completed yet and there does not seem to be any likelihood of completion in the near future.”

“It is extremely unfair to the two employees and to the public purse.”

“It is an unacceptable situation for everyone but particularly for the public who are the tax payer.”

While Mr Lowry has remained silent on the probe, Mr Keatley has insisted that he had “paid his way” on every stage of the luxury trip and is keen to have the chance to clear his name.

It is understood that he was angered at the decision to reallocate his job despite Court Services assurances that other posts would be available should he and his colleague be able to return to work.

The department has been expanded since Mr Keatley’s suspension to include new roles, including business modernisation, human resources and judicial services.

The two posts sit within a salary range of £46,000 to £61,000.

“Both officials remain under precautionary suspension with full pay,” a Court Service spokeswoman said.
“There is no impact on their pension.”

“The independent investigation is on ongoing and is being progressed as quickly as possible.”

PS. Why are the  ‘public purse’ and ‘the tax payer’ in Northern Ireland being so heavily punished, yet again by the Northern Ireland Court Service?J.F.

Derry News Monday 12 January 2009 Front Page Headlines Man hits burglar and almost gets charged See Page 5

Man avoids charge for hitting burglar Page 5.

A Galliagh man hit out against our current legal system after being told he could have faced an assault charge for hitting a burglar who entered his home. By Melissa Towel melissa@derrynews.net

Kevin McGilloway, from Moss Park, intercepted the burglar at his home on March 19 last and during an exchange between the pair the burglar sustained a broken nose.

Mr. McGilloway was not charged for the offence because the culprit did not wish to make a complaint against him.

Speaking to the Derry News after 24-year-old James Moore, also of Moss Park, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison in connection with the incident; Mr. McGilloway said he felt let down by the law.

“It is a joke that I could have had a charge against me. It is absolutely ridiculous,” he said.

“I am still feeling the after effects of what happened now. Every wee noise and creak you hear you think is there someone in the house. It’s not a nice feeling at all.”

Recalling the night the incident happened; Mr. McGilloway said he remembered lying in bed as approximately 4.30a, when he heard a noise in the bathroom.

“I went in and saw a man standing there. It was a scary thing. He took a swing at me with a weapon he was carrying and I blocked it with my arm.”

“My first thought was for my wife and what could have happened to her and then I remember thinking it was either me or him and it wasn’t going to be me.”

Mr. McGilloway said he restrained the defendant until police got there.

When they arrived, he said he felt like he was the one being questioned.

“A police officer said I might have used excessive force but all I was thinking about was at the time was protecting my wife.”

“There should be clear guidelines for home owners who find themselves in situations like this.”

“I could have ended up with a criminal record and possibly lost my job over this.”

PS. A frightening experience for Mr. McGilloway and his wife.

Would it not have been more appropriate for the Police and the Law to commend Mr. McGilloway for his bravery, rather than issuing threats against the victim?

Seamus McCaughey, is an innocent man aged in his 70s and in 2001 he was beaten unconscious by a father and son, pair of criminals using an iron bar.

As you can see from reading Seamus McCaughey’s case history, www.crookedlawyers.com rather than prosecute the ‘father and son pair of criminals’!!

The police arrested Seamus McCaughey and his son Shaun McCaughey when they were discharged from hospital.

The police and PPS Northern Ireland later sentenced his son Shaun McCaughey to 3 years in prison for saving his father’s life.

I have known Seamus McCaughey and his late wife Margaret from 1984 and spent many enjoyable hours in their company, e.g. discussing nursing and health care as two of their daughters were also qualified nurses or enjoying traditional music with my late father.

I got the shock of my life in 2007 when Seamus McCaughey, spoke openly at the VLPS meeting in Silver Birch Hotel Omagh and told a packed audience of what had happened in 2001.

Reading Mr. McGilloway’s story, he could so easily have become another ‘miscarriage of justice’ as has happened to such a pleasant and inoffensive man as Seamus McCaughey and his family.

Does it not really beggar belief?

Why is it that the Police, Gardai and the Legal & Judicial Systems  appear to be working more in the interest of the criminals, rather than protecting the innocent law abiding citizens? J.F.

The Irish News Wednesday February 11 2009 News Page 11

Established legal firm lays off staff as part of cost-cutting due to downturn. By Bimpe Fatogum

One of Northern Ireland’s leading firms of commercial solicitors has been forced to lay off staff as a result of the property slump.

L’Estrange & Brett, based in Bridge Street in Belfast city centre, has made five members of staff redundant.

Two solicitors and three secretaries have been laid off at the firm due to “the economic condition.”

Senior partner Brian Henderson said redundancies were among a number of cost-cutting measures.

“As a result of the economic condition we are taking a number of steps to ensure our costs and resources are in line with our current and anticipated workloads,” he said.

“We currently employ over 90 people and have made two solicitors and three secretaries redundant in our property department being the area of work most affected.”

There are still 31 people left in the department.

Established in 1796, it is one of the oldest firms in the north and had recently extended its premises with the opening of a new suite of meeting rooms in the third floor of the building.

The firm had grown rapidly in recent years in response to the north’s economy.

PS. Could it be argued that perhaps the 80 million Euros of ‘Fabricated Undertakings’ of Solcitor Michael Lynn, (and other solicitors)  were a major cause of  the Irish Credit Crunch and now Solicitors being made redundant?

Could we describe this as an ‘Own Goal’ of ‘Corrupt illegal/Financial Undertakings’ behaving as  a ‘Boomerang’? J.F.

Fermanagh Herald Wednesday, February 4, 2009 NEWS Page 5

Quinn admits he may have been too greedy. But businessman insists there was no impropriety in anything the company has done. By Nuala McAloon.

Derrylin business man Sean Quinn has admitted that he and his family may have been too greedy and have lost over one billion euro as a result of their investment in Anglo Irish Bank.

In a rare interview with RTE, he insisted however that there was no impropriety in anything his company had ever done in the bank.

Mr. Quinn was speaking out as the Quinn Group continued to be as the centre of a media frenzy.

He acknowledged that in hindsight he had made a mistake but with shares in Anglo Irish Bank over the last 10 years, he was always impressed with the way the bank had operated.

“Was it a mistake? In hindsight, of course it was, it was a very expensive mistake,” he said.

However, he said what happened was totally unprecedented.

“If anybody had said to Sean Quinn back 10 years ago or if Sean Quinn said he was going to invest in glass, radiator packaging, plastics, Russia, India, Ukraine, Poland or all through Eastern Europe and they said Sean, we are going to add the Irish Banks, I think most people would have said look it, you are safe in the Irish Banks, but I am not so sure if you are safe in Russia.”

Mr. Quinn said he was never much involved with the Anglo directors or managers but rather relied on results every quarter or half year.

Photograph with the caption: Sean Quinn spoke out in a rare interview with RTE, insisting that there was no impropriety in anything his company had ever done in the Anglo Irish Bank.

“Every year the results were fantastic, the cost to income ratio was low and as regards borrowing from banks, that wouldn’t have crossed our minds.”

Asked about his losses from Anglo, Mr. Quinn said he wasn’t going to talk about specific figures but admitted that they did amount to over a billion euro.

“But at his stage we have decided that we will write everything off, we are not counting any value on the Anglo shares, if they are worth something in the coming weeks, months or years to come, so be it but we can survive without the Anglo shares, they are written off and we are not discussing it, it’s the family, it’s the five kids and my wife who own the shares in Anglo bank so we are not discussing what the losses are but hey are substantial.”

Mr. Quinn was asked how a man of his wisdom, experience and instinct who had made so many good calls, locally, nationally and internationally could lose a billion plus.

“Well, I suppose you could ask how do you come to make a billion plus,” he said. “The other thing is it’s a family business as well and I am not trying to proportion the blame to anybody else but the shares are owned by the kids. The kids bought the shares but at the end of the day I’m not trying to divorce myself, it was a bad call and it was a bad mistake, but that’s hindsight.”

He said the company was never put in any risk, adding that money in shares was always money they could afford to do without.

“Now that might seem cheeky to say but that’s the reality of it, there was never any issue with our company. There are few companies in Ireland as successful as we are and I suppose one thing in hindsight, we were too greedy, because we have a tremendous business.”

“We have got tremendous opportunities in ten countries outside of Britain and Ireland. We had tremendous investments in 12, 14 countries, so I suppose in hindsight we were too greedy by being too heavily involved in stocks and shares but there you are, that’s hindsight.”

He insisted that he never partook in any dodgy business.

“There was no impropriety in any thing we have done in that bank or in any other bank. Anything we have done we are very proud of what we have done, we are above board, we don’t owe anybody anything, we don’t owe anybody any great apology. If we owe an apology to anybody, it’s our staff that maybe we slowed up the growth of the company and maybe the reputation was tarnished. So from that point of view, yes we made a mistake. As regards any impropriety, absolutely none.”

He said he had agreed to do the interview because of the media frenzy around the Quinn Group and some indication of impropriety.

“We feel that is totally outlandish, outrageous and there is no basis for it. Where they are getting it, I have no idea. Why they want to do it or why they want to discredit the company with 8,000 employees, 5,500 of them in Ireland with 1,400 of these Irish employees working on companies outside Ireland. So we think we are great employers, we have as many staff as we did a year ago. We have had no pay-offs. We may have switched staff around from place to place but there has been no reduction in staffing levels.”

Mr. Quinn said the company was very strong and very safe and in areas such as construction, which may be struggling, work had been reshuffled and found elsewhere in the company for staff.

PS. What an incredible amount of money that has gone down the drain, due it would appear to ‘white collar crime’ speculation by the bank chief executives and other fat cats.

The figure of over a billion euro or one thousand million euro loss in Anglo Irish Bank is incredible.

Given that the Northern Bank Robbery in Belfast involved around 26 million pounds.

Could it be argued that  this over a billion ‘white collar crime’ by the Anglo Irish Bank is in a super league equivalent to the Northern Bank Robbery being robbed 40 times? J.F.

Re-sending, sorry I forgot to type a 'n' in centraloffice, regards Joe.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Ferris [mailto:j.ferris3@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 20 February 2009 17:05
To: info@meylermcguigan.com
Cc: cetraloffice@courtsni.gov.uk; j.ferris3@ntlworld.com
Subject: FW: 05/022648/A02
Please Note, In accordance with Practice Directive no 10 and as per e-mail from Mr. Robert Ratcliffe, I re-serve Books of Appeal amd service of skeleton argument & attachment on serial liars, regards Joe. (copy to central office for information)
-----Original Message-----
From: Central Office [mailto:centraloffice@courtsni.gov.uk]
Sent: 20 February 2009 10:13
To: Joe Ferris
Cc: j.ferris@ulster.ac.uk
Subject: RE: 05/022648/A02
Dear Mr Ferris,

I acknowledge receipt of your email and attachments.

Your four books of appeal have been received by this office.  Mr McWilliams letter is the standard letter which is issued whenever a case is listed for hearing.

The court does not serve your skeleton argument on the respondents, it is your responsibility to do this in accordance with the Practice Direction (I draw you attention to no. 10).

Yours sincerely,

Robert Ratcliffe



From: Joe Ferris [mailto:j.ferris3@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 20 February 2009 03:00
To: Central Office
Cc: j.ferris3@ntlworld.com; j.ferris@ulster.ac.uk
Subject: 05/022648/A02

Re: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal
CHRISTINE MEYLER (PLT/R) AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH PATRICK FERRIS (DECEASED) (DECEASED) : JOSEPH FERRIS (A) (CASE STATED FROM HIGH COURT JUDGE)
FAO Ian McWilliams,
    In your letter to me dated 17 December 2008, you include the statement:- 'The appellant's solicitors are required to lodge FOUR books of appeal, indexed and paginated, with the Appeals and Lists Office 7 Working Days before the hearing date.'

I wish you to note that I provided FOUR books of appeal on 14 October 2008 and these were stamped with the High Court of Justice Northern Ireland on that day and I also sent a copy by Recorded Delivery & First Class Post to Meyler McGuigan on the same date. I unfortunately did not include the case reference number 05/022648/A01 when I responded to  the letter from Robert Ratcliffe dated 19 September 2008. I attach my Statement of Appeal, however, this is without the Exhibits. Hoping you are able to locate my previous books of appeal as mentioned, with the exhibits.

I now attach, my skeleton argument and copy of Serial Liars, not looking forward to Monday 2nd March, but needs must.

Do I need to serve a copy of my skeleton argument on Meyler -- McGuigan or does your office do that? Looking forward to hearing from you, regards Joe

Joe Ferris,
14 Alanvale Crescent,
Kilfennan Estate,
L/Derry, BT47 5SJ.

Disclaimer Message: eTrust SCM for SMTP has analyzed the attached email and, based on its content, has determined that it contains words or statements that may cause offence. The policy is to identify messages containing such words or statements and attach them to this email. In the future, these types of messages may be blocked.


Disclaimer Message: eTrust SCM for SMTP has analyzed the attached email and, based on its content, has determined that it contains words or statements that may cause offence. The policy is to identify messages containing such words or statements and attach them to this email. In the future, these types of messages may be blocked.

PS. E-mail confirming books of appeal, skeleton argument and Serial Liars attachment, for Court of Appeal Hearing Belfast Monday 2nd March 2009. J.F