Rate-Your-Solicitor.com Forum

The Irish News, Thursday October 25th 2007, page 12.

Courts Service starts search for new head
By Bimpe Fatogun

The Courts Service is in the process of recruiting a new head of operations – while former chief remains suspended on full pay with an estimated salary of £61,000.

George Keatley, pictured and Brian Lowry, the service’s head of procurement, were suspended in August 2005 after it emerged that they had accepted a holiday from a contractor on his private yacht the previous summer.

Richard Maybin was the then managing director of Maybin Support Services and at the time the firm held a multi-million pound contract for court service security.

During the time of the men’s suspension, which has been on full pay, they have received more that £156,000.

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

Police have been preparing a file for the Public Prosecution Services in relation to the case.

An independent inquiry was also ordered into the courts service’s policy on accepting gifts and hospitality.

However, although a courts service spokeswoman said “posts are currently being held open for the two officers, subject to the outcome of the investigations”, it has emerged that Mr. Keatley’s former role has been advertised through an internal trawl, which began on August 31.

The post of head of court operations is filled on a temporary promotion basis.

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

“The trawl seeks to fill the post substantively,” a Courts Service spokeswoman said.

“By substantive we mean a successful candidate would be appointed as head of court operations on a permanent as opposed to a temporary basis.”

She added that the independent investigation is still ongoing.

“[It] cannot be completed until the parallel police investigation has concluded.”

“The conduct of the police investigation is a matter for PSNI.”

Mr. Keatley has said he is anxious to clear his name saying he “worked his passage” during the sailing trip in the Danish capital Copenhagen in 2004.

The contract to provide security at Northern Ireland’s courts faced two legal challenges earlier this year.

After Maybin Property Services was re-awarded the contract in 2006 it emerged its security licence had expired.

The government then issued a retrospective licence but Federal Security Services (FSS), which was second in the tendering process, has brought an action under the Public Contract Regulations claiming it should have been awarded the contract.

The government decided to re-run the tender exercise but that decision was also challenged by way of judicial review.

P.S. Would it be fair to say there is ‘Gold in them there Courts’ in Northern Ireland, but no money to pay for essential care for 96-year-old grandmother Annie Irwin?
The following extract from Diarmuid Hannigan’s book, ‘Lawyers or Grave Robbers’ is very informative:- ‘Evan Whitton in "Serial Liars," explains what can happen in the following story. It would be wise to take this warning from history very seriously if you are contemplating the involvement of the legal profession in your estate.
The record spin-out, Jennens v Jennens, began in the anciently corrupt Chancery Court in 1798, four years after the water lawyer (Shark) was caught near Workington. Jennens concerned the estate of a loan shark names William Jennens, whose grandfather had married twice and called boys from each marriage Robert. William Jennens plied his trade in London's gambling dens. He was the richest commoner in England, worth five million pounds, about five hundred million pounds today. Jennens, 98 unmarried went to a solicitor to make a will, but forgot to take his spectacles, and the solicitor's spectacles did not fit. He died a few days later, on Tuesday, June 19, 1798, the unsigned will still in his pocket, and twenty thousand pounds (about $A6 million today) in cash in the house. Lawyers for the alleged relatives flooded into the Chancery Court.

Jennens v Jennens was still going when Dickens was born in 1812, when he worked as a law clerk at Ellis & Blackmore in 1827-28, when he used it as a model for Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House in 1852-53, and when he died in 1870. It ended in 1915, 117 years after it began, but only because generations of water lawyers (sharks) had 'devoured' the entire estate. Jennens had thus been on foot for 55 years when Dickens observed that the law exists to make business for lawyers.’

P.S. Again, I never thought for one moment that when in October 1986 when my late father Charles Ferris engaged the services of Omagh, Solicitor James Montague that over 22 years later the ‘Corruption’ would still be ongoing. My late father on the day before his death 9th October 2005 described the solicitors involved as ‘A Nest of  Rats’ that had created 19 years of ‘Living Hell’ for him since he responded to a Land Registry Notice in Ulster Herald dated 8th October 1986. My late father’s choice of words just before his death are almost identical to 'THE EVIL DEEDS OF THE RATBAG PROFESSION' in the Criminal Justice System by Brett Dawson published in 1998.

Jennens -v- Jennens lasting for one hundred and seventeen years, until all the money was gone. Is this a record for the ‘money-sucking’ lawyers?

http://www.lcs-test.co.uk/UnJustISNews.htm - this is the website for fuller details of 'Corrupt lawyer cheated hospitals' and the countless others that I posted recently.

http://www.barnett-ross.co.uk/page6.html
Bent money laundering solicitors, good title of the ‘Flaw Society Protecting Crooked Solicitors’ many incredible stories on this website.

P.S. Could it be argued very strongly that all potential clients of solicitors should have a ‘Survival Guide for your Protection’ when having any dealings with Solicitors and/or Barristers?  J.F.

The Belfast Telegraph: Secretly filmed teen girl has two weeks to appeal verdict
By Linda McKee
Friday, 12 October 2007

Ritchie MacRitchie: took video of teen in pool changing cubicle

The 17-year-old girl who was secretly filmed in a swimming pool changing room by a solicitor says she has just two weeks to lodge an appeal after the case was dismissed.
The teenager told how she only learned of the outcome of the case when it was broadcast on the radio.
The girl, who is now 18, told a BBC Radio Ulster phone-in yesterday that the actions of solicitor Ritchie MacRitchie had wrecked her life. His case was dismissed because the video clips showed her wearing a bikini.
"I lost my place at college because I was off sick - I couldn't leave the house for a few weeks," she said.
"I can't sleep still, I have to take tablets to help me sleep. I can't go out clubbing with my friends, I can't wear the clothing my friends are wearing because I can't bear men looking at me - it's just destroyed my life altogether."
The teenager described how she was dressing with her young niece in a cubicle at the unisex changing room in the Fall Leisure Centre a year ago when she spotted what was going on.
"I was going down to pick my shoe up in the corner and I saw his hand and I shouted out to my boyfriend 'who's in there next door to me?'" she said.
"He shouted 'a man, why?' and I shouted 'well he's videoing me with his phone'. When my boyfriend asked him to come out, he wouldn't come out, so I ran out and I got the staff.
"They all crowded round and got him out and got the phone off him and then they held him until the police came."
The girl said she was given the number of a police officer but was unable to make contact for a number of weeks and eventually gave up.
She was later contacted by a member of the Public Prosecution Service and briefed on what was happening.
"I was on the phone to him last week and he was saying Monday was to set a date - it wasn't anything other than that because they had got all the evidence, got all their witnesses and what they were doing now was setting a date," she said.
"On Tuesday morning I was sitting and I heard the news on the radio. I don't know what way it works, but I am confused at the minute."
The girl said she had tried going back to a swimming pool but couldn't face going in.
"If he gets away with being innocent, he's going to do that again maybe, or other people are just going to keep on doing that," she said.
"I would like the law to be changed so that other people don't have to go through that."
She said she hadn't told friends because she was so embarrassed but has now decided to open up.
"I don't want other people to go through what I've went through. This man - people are meant to go to him for help."
It has emerged that MacRitchie is back at work at P Drinan Solicitors. When contacted, he said he did not want to discuss the case but added: "The fact that I was acquitted speaks for itself."
A committee of Belfast City Councillors last night recommended that Mr MacRitchie be banned from all of the city's parks and leisure centres.
However, the ban can only be enforced following agreement at a meeting of the full council.
"The feeling of people right across the city is somebody has to start a zero tolerance attitude," said Cllr Bob Stoker, chairman of the Parks and Leisure Committee.
Lord Mayor Jim Rodgers said Falls Leisure Centre is the only one to have the new village-style unisex changing areas, which were recommended as best practice by the Institute of Sport and Recreation.
A similar design is planned for the new Grove Wellbeing Centre, he said, adding that the policy needs to be reexamined.
"I have never been totally happy and I voiced my concerns well before the Falls swim centre plans were under way," he said.
The Law Society said it was reviewing the case and the evidence presented. MacRitchie could be taken before the Law Society Disciplinary Committee, charged with bringing the profession into disrepute.

P.S. Could it be argued that the ‘Flaw Society of Northern Ireland’ and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) were not very enthusiastic in dealing with this ‘Perverted’ Solicitor?

Mail Online:- The day a drunken woman judge was hauled from court for kissing a solicitor
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 12:10 AM on 14th January 2009.
A district judge drunk on brandy had to be escorted from court after forcibly kissing a solicitor and swearing at officials, a tribunal heard yesterday.
The judge, Esther Cunningham, 54, had been in court as a solicitor to represent a relative on a charge under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Yesterday she sobbed as she was suspended from practising as a solicitor for six months after admitting bringing her profession into disrepute.
George Marriott, for the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority, described the astonishing courtroom scenes to the tribunal.

Booze problem: Esther Cunningham attempted to kiss a solicitor friend in court
'The respondent forcibly kissed another solicitor and aggressively demanded to know the identity of other people within in the courtroom,' he said.
'She behaved as if drunk and refused to sit down until encouraged to do so by her assistant.
'She interrupted the magistrates whilst they gave their ruling and was escorted out of the court by a security guard.'
Once outside Grantham Magistrates Court in Lincolnshire, Cunningham unleashed a four-letter tirade at an usher when he refused to give her the magistrates' names, and called the prosecutor an obscene name.
She initially claimed she had been taking migraine drugs which made her sway and that she had an illness that made her breath smell of alcohol.
She also brushed off swearing at the prosecutor, arguing he had 'been called worse things'.
Cunningham even denied acting as a solicitor during the November 2006 hearing, claiming she had merely popped in 'to see what was going on'.
Yesterday the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal in London heard the deputy district judge, who adjudicates largely on civil matters in Lincolnshire, now accepts she had a drink problem and admitted bringing her profession-into disrepute.
The tribunal also heard that six months later, Cunningham appeared drunk while teaching on a two-day legal training course.
Initially Cunningham, who has practised law since 1980 and runs a firm from her home in Grantham, claimed she merely had an 'outgoing personality' and 'bold' teaching style.
But her solicitor Richard Nelson told the tribunal: 'She is ashamed and very apologetic. This is the beginning of the final stage of her humiliation.'
Mr Nelson said his client had personal problems and had been in an abusive relationship, adding of the 2006 incident: 'She acknowledges that in order to fortify herself she had some brandy.'
Ordering Cunningham to pay £6,200 costs on top of the suspension, during which she will be unable to sit as a district judge, tribunal chairman Andrew Boyd Holmes said: 'The conduct was  simply not acceptable.'
PS. Is this also evidence of always being both  ‘Judge & Solicitor’ and  accountable ‘Only as a Solicitor’ how can a ‘Lay-Litigant’ with a complaint against a solicitor ever get justice from a judge, who is actually just another solicitor, acting as judge? J.F.

If you should die without a will!

If you should die without a will.
Who’s pockets will your money fill?
The one’s you truly wish to have it.
Or someone else who’d gladly grab it.
Consider these important ‘ifs’.
Alas ignored by countless ‘stiffs’.

If you’re intestate its decreed,
‘A Special Grant’ is what you need.
That means not you but legislation,
(Called Letters of Administration).
Decides who gets your garden gnomes,
Spouse? Your Kids? Consult the tomes!

If you’ve no spouse or next of kin,
‘Bona Vacanti’ may come in.
In other words your precious pounds,
Are simply going to the Crown.
Or to a Duchy or if not,
The Duke of Cornwall cops the lot.

If you’re insane and if your first,
‘A Sound and a disposing mind’
Are not among your personal traits,
You’ll have to stay an intestate.
But if you’re not insane, for a small bill,
Have peace of mind and make your will.
‘Stephon’
Copied Friday 16th January 2008 by Joe Ferris (VLPS):-  from a ‘framed’ copy of the ‘Ode’ on the wall of the reception area of Murnaghan – Colton Solicitors. Mary Murnaghan, LL.B. 3 John Street, Omagh, Co. Tyrone. BT78 1DW Tel: 028 8224 2744 or 028 8224 2093 Fax 028 8224 6065

PS. Incredible to reflect that in 1985, my late father Charles Ferris and I called at the above office as we had established that my father’s grandmother, Anne Ferris, deceased 4th September 1925 had ‘made a will’ in the office of Murnaghan Solicitors and that the ‘Will of Anne Ferris and all land deeds’ had been ‘Uplifted in 1942 by a Bridget Ferris’.

My late father Charles Ferris asked Solicitor Mary Murnaghan:- “How could this happen?” Solicitor Mary Murnaghan, replied:- “It is because the Ferris family and the Murnaghan family, would have been on very good terms.”

My late father Charles Ferris, refuted this explanation proffered by Solicitor Mary Murnaghan, saying that in 1942, his father Charles Ferris, a surviving son of Anne Ferris, and the person in possession of all the lands, was the only person legally entitled to all these legal documents.

So my great grandmother Anne Ferris, deceased 1925 had ‘fully complied’ with the ‘Ode’ however, her will was ‘Uplifted’ in other words ‘the will went missing’ from the office of Murnaghan’s Solicitors.

I am left reflecting on the advice by Solicitor James Montague to the  ‘Ladies Group’ in Saint Joseph’s Hall Omagh, some years ago, when Solicitor James Montague stated:- “The Wise Man is the Man who leaves Nothing!” 

I think the song (You’re Going Out The Same Way You Came In)  by Big Tom McBride has the best quote:- “The Lawyers get the best and the Kinfolk get the rest.” J.F.

PS. Whilst, I was entranced in reading the above ‘Ode’ and writing down the ‘words of wisdom’ a ‘very angry gentleman’ came dashing out from within the precincts of the office of Murnaghan – Colton Solicitors.

‘The very angry gentleman’ asked me in an ‘aggressive tone’ “What are you writing?”  I said, “I am writing down these words of advice, who are you?”

The ‘very angry gentleman’ made no reply and went quickly back within the precincts of the office of Murnaghan – Colton Solicitors. “How can the behaviour of the ‘very angry gentleman’ be explained?”

I was accompanied by two other VLPS members, who were also left puzzled by the behaviour of the ‘very angry gentleman’. J.F.

Irish Daily Mail, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 Page 2

Only my opinion counts, says judge By Paul Caffrey.

It has been said that some judges are so aloof they live in ivory towers.

And now the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Richard Johnston, has revealed he doesn’t care what the public thinks about how he deals with rogue lawyers – because when they come before his court his opinion is the only one that counts.

The 71- year-old judge – who indicated three months ago that he may be prepared to change regulations that allow lawyers accused of misconduct to be brought to court under a cloak of anonymity – made the comments yesterday after he sanctioned yet another ‘dishonest’ lawyer.

The judge said “The public’s credulity of anything is so flimsy, and believing what they read in newspapers, that is not of any great interest to me, it’s my belief is much more important.”

The senior judge – who struck off both Michael Lynn and Thomas Byrne who between them owe more than E100 million to various financial institutions – was ruling in the case of Galway – based solicitor Laurence O’Connor, who was yesterday banned from practising without supervision for the next five years.

Mr. O’Connor had pleaded with the High Court not to impose the sanction, claiming that, because he would be forced to employ a solicitor of ten-year’s standing to supervise him on a full-time basis, it would put him out of business.

Yesterday, in a last-ditch plea for leniency, Mr. O’ Connors’ lawyers proposed that he be supervised for a lesser period of two years by his junior solicitor, in place of a more experienced solicitor.

To this, counsel for the Law Society, Paul Coffey SC, told the court: “It’s a solution but it may not have any credulity with the public whom it’s designed to protect.”

Mr. Justice Johnson then imposed the harsher restriction – while at the same time making his comments about the public’s credulity.

PS. The use of the word ‘credulity’ is most interesting, given that credulity is defined as ‘too willing to believe’. 

Is Judge Johnson, saying  something similar to Legal Eagle  or Bird of Prey’ Judge Sean MacBride, who stated:- ‘Usual Tyrone Thickness’?

Is the President of the High Court, who is a Public Servant, paid by the Irish Taxpayer, saying that all ‘Irish People are Thick’?

Interesting that John Fahy a Solicitor, when claiming, as a farmer is accountable to EU law, e.g. financial payments are disclosed.

Following the logic of President of the High Court Judge Johnson and  ‘returning to the Mushroom Management’ of ‘anonymity’ John Fahy as a Solicitor could misappropriate monies on a similar scale of millions as Michael Lynne and this will be ‘brushed under the carpet’ or ‘under the cloak’ of the President of the High Court Richard Johnston. No ‘transparency’ No EU legal requirements.

Is this just ‘Blarney Stone Law’ by Judge Johnston?

Could this also be the return of similar ‘standards’ as during the ‘Famine’ when local Irish were evicted from their holdings, when Landlords, such as ‘Adair’ placed a greater value/profit on ‘mountain sheep’ during the Glenveigh Evictions’?

The President of the High Court Richard Johnston could test the ‘credulity’ of the public by seeking nominations and canvassing the public for their votes (as in USA State Prosecutors).

The ‘reality’ when the votes  are counted this might be a surprise.

The ‘credulity’ of the public might manifest as happened during ‘The Lisbon Referendum’ when bombastic politicians had the wind taken out of their sails. The ‘Legal Eagles’ soaring high as ‘Judges’ might also find their ‘wings clipped’ by the public taxpayer, who also pay their wages.  J.F.

In a series of vignettes re.ecting on law and ethics, Evan Whitton shows how the concept of adversary ethics is based on a fallacy.
A lawyer without ethics is like a psychopath with a machine gun.
Monash Associate Law Professor Adrian Evans, 2005
notes
‘Lawyers’ here generally refers to some trial (litigation) lawyers, perhaps 35% of the total. In the space available, I have used sub-headings to scratch the surface of a large topic. I apologise in advance for any staccato effect.
ethics
Ethics and morals are synonymous. Adversary ethics is clientbased rather than morality-based.
lawyers
Charles Curtis said (‘The Ethics of Advocacy’, Stanford Law Review, 3, 1951): “ ... one of the functions of a lawyer is to lie for his client.” Harvard Ethics Professor Arthur Applbaum said (‘Professional Detachment: The Executioner of Paris’, Harvard Law Review, 1995):
“Lawyers might accurately be described as serial liars because they repeatedly try to induce others to believe in the truth of propositions, or in the validity of arguments, that they believe to be false.”
justice
Everyone except common lawyers (0.2% of the population) knows that everything turns on truth. The Hon Russell Fox QC (Justice in the 21st Century, Cavendish, 2000) says justice means fairness, fairness means truth, truth means reality and the search for truth gives a legal system its necessary moral dimension, otherwise the winner may merely be the one with the most
resources and best advocacy.
two systems
The adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies does not search for the truth. Lawyers (!) control the evidence and hence the process (and hence the money); untrained judges control the courtroom. The investigative (inquisitorial) system used in European countries, their former colonies, and Japan and South Korea searches for the truth and trained judges control the
process. Each affects about 1.6 billion people.
origins of the systems
England and Europe used an anti-truth, accusatorial (prove it!) system from the Dark Ages, that is after 476 AD. Every English public of.ce was for sale when lawyers and judges were .rst paid late in the twelfth century; they formed a cartel to increase pro.ts. Europe changed to the investigative (what happened?) system after 1215 and judges resorted to torture to get (?) the truth. The cartel persisted with the accusatorial system and resorted to
extortion to get the money.
origins of the adversary system
Judges began to let lawyers take control of the civil process in about 1460, but there was no money in criminal work until lowiclass, organised criminals appeared in the eighteenth century. Lawyers got control of the criminal process by 1810. The cartel has since invented at least nineteen new anti-truth devices which make it fairly easy to get rich criminals off. That is, 99% of those accused are guilty, but in serious cases more than 50% escape
justice (the other system convicts 90%).
adversary ethics
Lawyers’ unions put out aspirational notions of ethics, but Cornell Law Professor Charles Wolfram stated the reality in Modern Legal Ethics (West, 1986): “[The lawyer’s role is] institutionally schizophrenic ... a lawyer’s objective within the system is to achieve a result favourable to the lawyer’s client, possibly despite justice, the law and the facts.” That is, lawyers who control the ‘justice’ process believe they are ethically obliged to, in effect,
pervert justice. Stuart Littlemore QC stated the ethic accurately when Andrew Denton asked him (Channel 7, 1995) if he could defend “someone who you yourself believe not to be innocent” Littlemore replied: “Well, they’re the best cases. I mean, you really feel you’ve done something when you get the guilty off. Anyone can get an innocent person off. I mean, they shouldn’t be on trial. But the guilty – that’s the challenge.”
moral non-accountability
UCLA Law Professor Murray Schwartz wrote (‘The Professionalism and Accountability of Lawyers’, California Law Review, 1978): “When acting as an advocate for a client, a lawyer ... is neither legally, professionally, nor morally accountable for the means used or the ends achieved.” A Sydney psychiatrist, Dr Elizabeth O’Brien, said: “That sounds like psychopathy.”
justi.cation of adversary ethics
Georgetown Law Professor David Luban wrote in Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study (Princeton UP 1988): “Unless zealous representation could be justi.ed by relating it to some larger social good, the lawyer’s role would be morally impossible. That larger social good is supposed to be the cluster of values – procedural justice and the defense of rights – that are associated with the adversary system.” The syllogism may be stated as:
> major premise: the adversary system is justi.ed
> minor premise: the system demands ‘zealous’, ie. immoral, advocacy
> conclusion: immoral advocacy is justi.ed.
the fallacy
But Professor Schwartz wrote: “It might be argued that the law cannot convert an immoral act into a moral one ... by simple .at. Or more fundamentally, the lawyer’s non-accountability might be illusory if it depends upon the morality of the adversary system, and if that system is immoral ... the justi.cation for the ... principle of non-accountability ... would disappear.” As noted above, the adversary system is immoral because it does not seek the truth. The syllogism is thus a victim of the petitio principii (circular reasoning) fallacy. The conclusion, that immoral advocacy is
justi.ed, is false because the major premise is false.

Evan Whitton is author of three books on the West’s two legal systems, Trial byVoodoo, The Cartel and Serial Liars. He is also a columnist on Richard Ackland’s online legal journal, Justinian at www.justinian.com.au ethics in an immoral system
by Evan Whitton
PS. The statement:- “Lawyers might accurately be described as serial liars because they repeatedly try to induce others to believe in the truth of propositions, or in the validity of arguments, that they believe to be false.”

Could it be argued that ‘Irish Lawyers and Irish Judges’ are probably the best ‘serial liars’ in the Western World?

Rumpole of the Bailey creator John Mortimer dies
·    Alison Flood
·    The Guardian, Friday 16 January 2009
·    Article history

John Mortimer. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian

Rumpole of the Bailey creator John Mortimer, 85, died this morning following a prolonged illness. His family said in a statement that they were by his side when he passed away.

Mortimer, who lived in what was formerly his father's house in the Chilterns, had been in a London hospital until a few days before Christmas before coming home, after which his condition deteriorated, said Tony Lacey, Mortimer's editor at Penguin.

The novelist, playwright and former barrister, who was born in London in 1923, was known and loved for the comic lawyer Rumpole, whose dedication to cheap wine and motto "never plead guilty", has been his most enduring creation.

"He would announce to me on the phone that he thought he ought to 'do a Rumpole' on asbos or weapons of mass destruction, or some similar topic about which he felt particularly strongly.

Rumpole and John became increasingly fused," said Lacey. Mortimer originally wrote the series for television, later spinning it off into a series of books and radio programmes.

Up until his death he was producing more than one book a year, with his confinement to a wheelchair not stopping him from touring a one-man show around the country.

His time as a barrister saw him representing many divorce clients and murderers, with his famous court appearances including the radical magazine Oz's censorship trial, the Linda Lovelace so-called Deep Throat case and numerous others involving alleged pornography. "I found criminal clients easy and matrimonial clients hard," he said.

"Matrimonial clients hate each other so much and use their children to hurt each other in beastly ways. Murderers have usually killed the one person in the world that was bugging them and they're usually quite peaceful and agreeable."

His friend, the novelist Margaret Drabble, said today: "He was a great fighter, a great figure, and his record in defending literature and attacking censorship was absolutely brilliant. And he did it with such good humour - it was very hard to get cross with John. He was so unpompous about his defence of literature."

Indeed, his writing always seemed more of a vocation than his legal work, which he said was much harder than being a lawyer, despite having less disastrous results. "If you write a bad book, no one goes to prison which is rather a relief."

Mortimer worked with the Crown Film Unit during the war, writing a number of novels before turning to the theatre. He has also written a range of film scripts, and plays for television and radio, including A Voyage Around My Father, an adaptation of Brideshead Revisited, and the Rumpole plays, which won the British Academy Writer of the Year Award.

He wrote a trilogy of political novels about the rise of an ambitious Tory MP - Paradise Postponed, Titmuss Regained and The Sound of Trumpets, as well as four volumes of autobiography, receiving a knighthood for his services to the arts in 1998.

"John didn't believe in the afterlife. He borrowed a joke of his father's that eternity sounded frightfully like spending every day in the lounge of a Trusthouse Forte hotel," said Lacey.

"I wouldn't wish the hotel lounge on him of course – he would find it torture, he was so easily bored – but it's hard to think he's gone. At least we're lucky enough to have Rumpole to remind us just how remarkable he was."

The author - who would start writing at around 5am, regularly having a glass of champagne first thing in the morning - said that "No one should grow old who isn't ready to appear ridiculous". "Dying," he opined, "is a matter of slapstick and prat falls".

"Even though he was so ill, there was still a great sense of shock when I learned of his death - at some level he seemed indestructible. He was always fantastically upbeat and funny, full of stories - but there was a measure of self-doubt there, underneath all the charm and confidence, about his literary status and how he would finally be seen,"

Tony Lacey, his editor of many years at Penguin books said. "He was forever asking 'how am I doing? Is it time for me to give up?'"

"He was the last of the great lunchers, a real throw back to the glory days of the 70s and 80s in publishing, I used his name shamelessly to get the best seats at The Ivy or Sheekey's.

He was terrifically well informed, an avid news consumer, and if I arrived late for lunch he would always be buried in Private Eye, reading it from cover to cover - and he always knew more than was printed, about any story."

"For me he was the dream author, forever anxious to get onto the next project. He was working on another Rumpole, to be called Rumpole and the Younger Generation, which unusually was to be set in Oxford.

When I last saw him, four or five days before Christmas in hospital, he assured me he was determined to get on with it. He had finally started to dictate it because his eyesight had got so bad - he had always written in longhand and his handwriting was diabolical, indescribable - and I was amazed at how fluent it was.

He had completed three or four chapters, it was shaping up very well, very nicely plotted - and it's a great shame that we now will never see the book."


PS. According to this article barrister John Mortimer was most active against censorship.

Why in this modern world of Information Technology is there not ‘Full’ coverage of  all court hearings available, ‘so that not only is Justice Done but that Justice is seen to be Done? J.F.

News Letter Saturday January 17 2009 Page 17

‘Magee shouldn’t resign’

ROMAN Catholic Primate Cardinal Sean Brady has said he believes Newry-born bishop the Rev Dr. John  Magee should not resign over his handling of clerical child abuse allegations in the diocese of Cloyne.

Cardinal Brady said there had been serious failures in Cloyne, but he said Bishop Magee had learned a painful lesson and was determined to put in place proper procedures for dealing with abuse victims.

The Primate said people had called for Bishop Magee’s resignation because they were angry and victims’ concerns must be heeded.

The bishop had apologised and accepted responsibility for his failures and had introduced changes to ensure that proper procedures for dealing with clerical sex abuse allegations were implemented.

The Cardinal said Bishop Magee would do everything in his power to ensure that clerical abuse did not happen in his diocese again.

PS. Would it not be more correct for the Cardinal to state that ‘people were calling for Bishop Magee’s resignation, because of the ‘revulsion’?

Is not Bishop Magee (because of not having ‘proper procedures for dealing with abuse victims’)  just as guilty as the catholic priest’s who sexually abused the innocent children?J.F.

The Irish News, Saturday September 6th 2008

Solicitor to be tried for incitement to murder

A SOLICITOR is to stand trial on charges including incitement to murder after a judge threw out an application that he would not receive a fair trial.

Manmohan ‘Johnny’ Sandhu is accused of six offences relating to his conduct while consulting privately with clients between police interviews at Antrim Serious Crime Suite.

The charges relate to various dates in 2005 and 2006 when clients of Mr. Sandhu’s were being questioned about the murders of Andrew Cully and Jameson Lockhart and the attempted murder of Jonathan Hillier.

Mr. Cully was shot dead in Newtownards in March 2004, while Mr. Jameson was murdered in east Belfast in August 2005. Mr. Hillier, a taxi driver was shot after taking a fare to the West Winds Estate in Newtownards in July 2005.

The evidence against Mr. Sandhu, of Colby Avenue, Derry, is in the form of alleged conversations with several clients regarding the attacks and obtained by police via covert surveillance.

The 44-year-old has been charged with inciting another person to kill Jonathan Hillier and with two counts of perverting the course of justice by frustrating the police investigation into the attempted murder.

He also faces two charges of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice by frustrating the police investigation into the murder of Mr. Lockhart and of conspiring  to pervert the course of justice by using his position as a solicitor to keep members of a paramilitary organisation informed of the progress of a police investigation into terrorist-related offences.

Mr. Sandhu’s defence team made an application to the court earlier this year, claiming that as police had eavesdropped on private legal consultations between the solicitor and his clients in the way they did, Mr. Sandhu could not receive a fair trial.

However, Mr. Justice Hart concluded that “the evidence obtained in this case by means of direct surveillance…is capable of being admitted in evidence”.

He also ruled Mr. Sandhu could receive a fair trial.

Mr. Sandhu replied “not guilty” to all six charges at Belfast Crown Court.

Mr. Justice Hart set the non-jury trial date for February next year.

The accused was released on continuing bail.

P.S. Could it be said that this is a most controversial case?  J.F.