On May 20, 6:22=A0pm, "The Todal" wrote:
> "Ishtar" wrote in message
>
> news:bb177346-1644-4a74-b670-c5de55fdb702@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's all there.
>
> > Proof that the British are a bunch of shysters.
>
> >http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=3Ddddp6bt4_72wds2cwcb
>
> Well done for posting that. =A0It shows that the judge was sensible and fa=
ir,
> and that the defendant argued his case incompentently.
>
> It is established law that a defamatory imputation is presumed to be false=
> and that at trial the burden is on the defendant to show it is substantial=
ly
> true. =A0I refer in this regard to Gatley on Libel and Slander 10th Edn at=
> paragraph 11.3, citing Belt v Lawes (1882) 51 LJQB 359, 361. =A0No attempt=
was
> made in the Defence to give particulars of the defamatory meanings which t=
he
> Defendant sought to justify, nor details of the matters relied upon in
> support of the defence of justification, as required by the provisions of
> paragraph 2.5 of the Practice Direction to Part 53 of the Civil Procedure
> Rules.
> The hearing of this application commenced on 7th December 2007. =A0On that=
> day, the only material which was before me to throw any light upon the
> matters upon which the Defendant would rely at trial in support of his ple=
a
> of justification, or the nature of the evidence which might reasonably be
> expected to be available to him at trial in support of the plea, was
> two-fold.
> First, there was a letter which the Defendant had written to the Claimant'=
s
> Solicitors, dated 27th November 2007, enclosing a copy of the Defendant's
> published book entitled "The Real Yorkshire Ripper" and, further, a number=
> of attachments comprised primarily of what are described as supporting
> newspaper articles and reviews of his own publications, together with
> letters passing between himself and John Humble. =A0Secondly, there were
> statements in his allocation questionnaire that he intended to call three
> witnesses, namely "myself, John Humble and Peter ...", the last two =
to
> be witnesses to the fact "that he did a deal for his confession" and,
> further, that the Defendant wished to use expert evidence at the trial tha=
t
> "Humble's voice, writing and blood type will be in question" and "the jury=
> will be required to read my book 'The Real Yorkshire Ripper'" and "read my=
> full website".
> No written evidence was before me from or on behalf of the Defendant.
> Having heard the submissions of the Claimant and submissions by the
> Defendant, I adjourned the hearing part heard in order to allow the
> Defendant an opportunity to put his Defence to the claim and his response =
to
> this application in order. =A0In particular, I made an order that:
> "The Defendant, if so advised, do by 4th January 2008 file and serve in
> accordance with the Practice Direction (a) the defamatory meanings he seek=
s
> to justify and (b) the details of the matters on which he relies in suppor=
t
> of his defence of justification."
> =A0 =A0 =A0 I further ordered that
> "The Defendant do file and serve any written evidence upon which he wishes=
> to rely for the purposes of this application by 4th January 2008."
> In the event, by the resumed hearing on 1st February 2008, the Defendant h=
ad
> filed and served an affidavit exhibiting the book to which I have already
> referred and copies of the self same attachments to his previous letter. =
=A0He
> chose not to specify any of the meanings which he sought to justify, nor t=
o
> give any of the required particulars, save in so far as these could be
> gleaned from the affidavit. =A0At that resumed hearing, I also allowed the=
> Defendant to play to the Court a recording of a BBC programme documentary
> broadcast after the conviction of John Humble, notwithstanding this had no=
t
> previously been served as evidence.
> I should add that I refused thereafter to allow the Defendant to produce y=
et
> another recording. =A0I took the view that the Defendant had had ample
> opportunity before the hearing to serve in proper form any written evidenc=
e
> upon which he sought to rely and the hearing was in danger of developing
> into something of a free-for-all as far as the Defendant's presentation of=
> his case was concerned. =A0No application had been made to me to allow ora=
l
> evidence. =A0Miss Wilson on behalf of the Claimant understandably made
> complaint that the Defendant was using the opportunity given to him to mak=
e
> submissions simply to repeat in open Court, often in more graphic language=
,
> the allegations of corruption and misconduct against the Claimant in the
> publications complained of in this action.
> I have considered carefully all the material the Defendant has laid before=
> me, including his book and the attachments to his affidavit, but I can fin=
d
> nothing within that material which amounts to evidence or even an indicato=
r
> of the availability of evidence which would begin to contradict the eviden=
ce
> which the Claimant has put before me in support of the proposition that ea=
ch
> of the allegations made in the separate publications complained are
> indisputably false.
> Although, as the Claimant rightly reminds me, in determining whether the
> Defendant has a "better than merely arguable" defence the Court must
> consider each of the publications complained of individually, as the
> publications made comparable allegations, I have considered them together
> for this purpose under the three heads I have already identified.
>
> Lest the Defendant thinks otherwise, I have carefully looked through his
> affidavit, and the attachments and read through his book, in order to see =
if
> I could find anything which would amount to evidence or an indicator that
> credible evidence might reasonably be expected to be available at any tria=
l
> which would go to prove on the balance of probabilities the truth of the
> allegations he has made or which would go to contradict the evidence
> produced by the Claimant to the contrary. =A0As I have already stated,
> however, I could find nothing to this effect. =A0The Defendant's affidavit=
is
> no more than assertion and reiteration of his allegations - as was his
> letter of 27th November 2007, which was originally before the Court - whic=
h
> in truth are based on no more than speculation and surmise on his part
> arising out of this thesis developed in his book but that the letters were=
> not the work of a hoaxer but the work of the "real" Yorkshire Ripper, who =
is
> still at large. =A0At paragraph 6 of that affidavit, the Defendant asserts=
> that "my evidence will prove to the jury that the letters and tape sent by=
> the Ripper to George Oldfield were not the work of a hoaxer".
> Inferentially, this must mean that his evidence would prove that, contrary=
> to the presumption created by the Humble convictions, and contrary to the
> other evidence produced to me by the Claimant (including that from Humble
> himself), Humble was not the author of the letters and tape. =A0The Defend=
ant,
> however, did not identify to me what that evidence is. =A0In his Allocatio=
n
> Questionnaire, as indicated, he asserts that he intends to use expert
> evidence at the trial where Humble's voice, writing and blood type would b=
e
> in question; and in oral submission to me, the Defendant on more than one
> occasion stated that he had evidence to show that the letters were not
> written by Humble and that the voice on the tape was not that of Humble an=
d
> that "anyone can see" that the letters written by the so-called hoaxer and=
> those in the evidence written by Humble "were not written by the same man"=
.
> However, I repeat the Defendant did not produce this evidence to me, exper=
t
> or otherwise, or produce any material to suggest such evidence is likely t=
o
> be available to him. =A0It was no doubt in response to these assertions at=
the
> first hearing that the Claimant produced his second witness statement,
> explaining in more detail the nature of the forensic evidence relating to
> handwriting, voice comparisons and blood type, which was obtained for the
> purposes of the Humble prosecution, to which I have already referred. =A0T=
he
> Defendant has produced nothing to me which even begins to contradict that
> evidence.
> Nothing in the attachments to the Defendant's affidavit takes the Defendan=
t's
> case on justification any further in my view. =A0None of them goes to the
> issue of whether the Claimant planted evidence in order to frame an innoce=
nt
> man, save for the letter written by Humble himself to the Defendant himsel=
f,
> which I have already referred to, and which contradicts such an allegation=
.
> None of them goes to the issue whether the Claimant used improper
> interrogation methods in order to extract a confession by blackmail, save
> again the contradictory contents of the Humble letter. =A0For the most par=
t,
> the attachments are extracts from newspaper articles concerning the
> Yorkshire Ripper investigation, which well pre-date the material events
> comprising the investigation which led to Humble's arrest and conviction, =
or
> are letters of review of the Defendant's own book. =A0Interestingly, one o=
f
> those letters at attachment 2, dated October 1989 from a Mr Ian Smith, sai=
d
> to be Editor of Chief Constable Ronald Gregory's memoirs, states that he
> agrees with the Defendant's premiss that ... was not responsible for=
> all the murders and "should you ever be able to support your theories by
> facts" he would be delighted to become involved.
> I should also add that nothing identified to me as appearing on the
> Defendant's website or in the BBC broadcast which the Defendant insisted o=
n
> playing to the Court amounted to either evidence or potential evidence in
> support of the plea of justification.
> At its highest, the so-called evidence produced by the Defendant in his
> affidavit amounts only to surmise and speculation on the part of the
> Defendant, based on his belief that Humble cannot have been the author of
> the letters because of his, the Defendant's, thesis that the letters were =
no
> hoax and that the true Ripper is still at large. =A0In his letter of Novem=
ber
> 2007, written to the Claimant's Solicitors and copied not only to the Cour=
t
> but also to many other people, including many media organisations, the
> Defendant not only took the opportunity to repeat his defamatory allegatio=
ns
> against the Claimant, but asserted that he has a "valid" defence to the
> claim because "the words complained of are statements of fact and reasonab=
le
> assumptions based on certain facts and it is a matter for the jury to deci=
de
> if that is contested". =A0I accept entirely that the words complained of a=
re
> statements of fact. =A0Where I part company with the Defendant is in his
> assertion, in effect, that he has evidence of other facts from which a jur=
y
> properly directed could draw the inference that the words complained of ar=
e
> true. =A0No such evidence of facts capable of supporting such an inference=
has
> been drawn to my attention.
> It is for all these reasons that I am satisfied that the Claimant has
> demonstrated to me that the allegations complained of in this action, whic=
h
> the Defendant does not dispute making, are indisputably false and that the=
> Defendant has no prospect of adducing any evidence at trial on the basis o=
f
> which a properly directed jury could find they were true.
> It follows that, subject only to my considering whether the Defendant has
> any other viable substantive defence open to him (notwithstanding no such
> defence has been explicitly raised by him) or whether there is any other
> compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial, I am
> satisfied that the Claimant is entitled to the summary judgment which he
> seeks in this application.
Toads, you know and I know O'Gara is a .wit with aloud voice, but
and it as plain as mud from the judgement that King was bias, he knew
the type of nut he was dealing with and provoke the pants of him,
O'Gara had simply no idea how to present evidence, that of course does
not mean evidence does not exist, nor in fact that O'Gara is wrong, it
only shows how easy it is to goad an idiot who needs to be goaded.
King overlook that no medical certificate was got by the case officer
(...) before he interviewed a man suffering substance abuse, Humble
was never advised about mitigation, and its doubtful that he would
have understood that if he intended to plead guilty then at least let
the lawyer do it for him, Certainly ... took advantage of a weakened
individual and certainly that is manifestly wrong
O'Gara is not the brightest cab of the rank, but boyo, Im not bad. |