I’ve nothing but contempt for this sort of shabby insinuation by @mimmymum from behind a block, and without attempting to engage with any issue of substance about the book
For those for whom an activist agenda drives their perception of every argument, here is @JusticeTyrwhit making it clear that he “would probably support almost all of Prof Playdon’s political agenda” but that “there’s no need to revise the past to support that”
@Scott_Wortley, who has unimpeachable credentials as a person qualified to comment on Scots law, has tweeted this thread of response to the assertions made by Zoe Playdon in her book and in response to the two newspapers which have published criticism of the book
I’m pleased to see and acknowledge that @mimmymum has deleted her defamatory tweets and apologised
Rather less impressed to read that she has blocked those who have retweeted her acknowledgment of deletion, and apology
And on a more positive note, @Scott_Wortley has helpfully set out all the Scottish law points which are relevant to the so-called hidden case of Ewan Forbes and the narrative of the book in one place here
This tweet includes the Times obituary of Scottish law lord, Lord Jauncey, who as Charles Jauncey QC acted for Ewan Forbes-Sempill in the “hidden” 1967 case. The case was on public record long before Jauncey’s death in 2005, but isn’t mentioned, despite its supposed importance
If there was anything other than fantasy to support the idea that the Forbes baronetcy dispute and its outcome risked precipitating a constitutional crisis comparable to the abdication of Edward VIII, this obituary of Lord Jauncey would have been an obvious place to mention it
@Scott_Wortley has added a significant postscript to his notes on Scottish law and the apparent misunderstanding of it in the recently-published book “The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes” scott-wortley.medium.com/some-quick-tho…
Very pleased to see the publication of this letter trenchantly criticising @TheTLS’s review of The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes. The review was written by a supportive campaigner, not an objective critic of a flawed work @Resjudicatamyft@mrsSkys@Scott_Wortley@void_if_removed
Although the writer of the letter makes one small slip in referring to “open court”. The 1967 hearing by Lord Hunter of the petitions of John and Ewan Forbes-Sempill, determining that John was not the male heir to the Forbes baronetcy, was in chambers (private) as a summary trial
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Delegitimising”. These posts are a lawyer, a KC who formerly practised in tax law, who now runs a not for profit campaigning law organisation he set up, and who has a close personal interest in these issues, delegitimising the judgment of our country’s final court of appeal
The appeal only reached the UK Supreme Court because the court below, the Court of Session Inner House, gave permission to appeal. There is a legal test for this: whether there is an arguable point of public importance that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court of the UK
In the Supreme Court of the UK, the appeal was argued for both sides and by permitted interveners. The judgment is unanimous (like the 2019 prorogation judgment) and the work of three men and two women of the highest judicial erudition. I know where I think the delegitimising is
I don’t see any strong correlation between the fact this case was crowdfunded and the fact that there was a client-solicitor dispute about the solicitors’ charges. There is no difference in the duties and remedies in that relationship and those in a non-crowdfunded case
The crowdfunding platform CrowdJustice transfers funds raised directly to solicitors acting in a case, to ensure they are not used for some other purpose by the crowdfunding promoter, but plays no role in reviewing or auditing the solicitors’ bills in any way
The real problem with crowdfunded litigation is that funders have no access to neutral information or legally privileged advice on merits or strategy, and no influence on strategy other than the broad brush of sufficiency or insufficiency of funding for the case to be pursued
The Bill would create a “state [assisted] suicide service”. It is literal interpretation, not inflammatory to say so. The Bill partially decriminalises the offence of assisting suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 and it gives power to ensure that assistance is available on the NHS
This former BBC journalist wrongly stigmatises an MP’s literally accurate phrase as “inflammatory”, and in the same breath describes those here who point this out to him as “those famously robust Elon lads”. He needs a bit less gotcha and a bit more reading of what the Bill says
It isn’t a universal state suicide service, because there are eligibility limits for it. Only people who are terminally ill and have sufficient mental capacity qualify. But it is essentially “on demand” for them. The safeguards are a compliance check not a discretionary filter
This latest GLP crowdfunder is unsurprisingly controversial. I’m not going to repeat the talking points for or against the merits of the legislation. There is a link to a pre-action letter which sets out the legal arguments. But how persuasive are they?
Supporters have no access to or indication of the privileged advice on the merits given by the lawyers in the case. And the GLP has not updated its records spreadsheet to show that its most recent crowdfunded judicial review, on voter ID, failed to get permission, as unarguable
The claimant in the case is TransActual CIC. It has instructed its own solicitors and barristers, but not used its own funds. The GLP’s role is just crowdfunding the case, for which it takes 10p in every £ donated and keeps any surplus out of the £75,000 target for its own work
Matthew Parris’s vision of euthanasia is one where people of full mental capacity and free of coercive influence will rationally choose to “check out early”. It’s a callous vision and it takes no account of frailty, folly, or loss of freedom in making a life or death decision
This case of a man who killed his mother and was indulgently sentenced for his offence was reported this week. I’m troubled by it. Imagine the same events happening in the moral universe Matthew Parris describes? The Sixth Commandment in shades of grey thetimes.co.uk/article/man-wh…
The judge accepted that the son, who had given up work to become a full-time carer for his mother, believed that death was the only solution. But he had *no* right to impose that belief on his mother, who was then incapable of understanding or making such a decision for herself
The one thing this isn’t is charitable. The crowdfunding page names no lawyers, but describes Chris Packham himself as the case owner. He is not a charity. There is no link to any pre-litigation correspondence or draft grounds of claim, or statement of how a surplus will be used
This link is more informative and makes it clear that there are lawyers acting in the case. But why does Chris Packham, who owes his public prominence to work for the BBC, a public service broadcaster funded by licence payers, need to crowdfund for this litigation?