Is 'Public Interest Lawyers' an oxymoron?
Discussion
'Sickening claims that British troops executed innocent Iraqis in cold blood were sensationally dropped at a war crimes inquiry yesterday.
After a year-long inquiry costing taxpayers £22million, the case fell apart when relatives admitted there was no hard evidence the insurgents were unlawfully killed in UK custody.
Lawyers for the families accepted the men were killed during a ferocious firefight, dubbed the Battle of Danny Boy, near Basra in 2004.
The public inquiry was announced in 2009 after a long legal battle between Iraqi families – represented by Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers – and the Ministry of Defence. The Birmingham-based firm has already been paid millions from the public purse.
But in a statement, Public Interest Lawyers said: ‘Following the conclusion of the military evidence and current state of disclosure by the MoD, it is our view there is insufficient material to establish that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops.
A Whitehall source said: ‘The taxpayer has been led a merry dance by PIL whose charlatan clients have, it seems, simply falsified accounts – all underpinned by public money. Human rights lawyers have cost taxpayers a staggering amount of money.’
Mr Shiner, 57, has made his name pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq. He has represented alleged victims of abuses by troops, including relatives of Baha Mousa, who died in 2003 in British custody.'
For myself, I believe our troops while operating overseas should have immunity from any legal action in this country. The US has got this right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585838/La...
After a year-long inquiry costing taxpayers £22million, the case fell apart when relatives admitted there was no hard evidence the insurgents were unlawfully killed in UK custody.
Lawyers for the families accepted the men were killed during a ferocious firefight, dubbed the Battle of Danny Boy, near Basra in 2004.
The public inquiry was announced in 2009 after a long legal battle between Iraqi families – represented by Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers – and the Ministry of Defence. The Birmingham-based firm has already been paid millions from the public purse.
But in a statement, Public Interest Lawyers said: ‘Following the conclusion of the military evidence and current state of disclosure by the MoD, it is our view there is insufficient material to establish that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops.
A Whitehall source said: ‘The taxpayer has been led a merry dance by PIL whose charlatan clients have, it seems, simply falsified accounts – all underpinned by public money. Human rights lawyers have cost taxpayers a staggering amount of money.’
Mr Shiner, 57, has made his name pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq. He has represented alleged victims of abuses by troops, including relatives of Baha Mousa, who died in 2003 in British custody.'
For myself, I believe our troops while operating overseas should have immunity from any legal action in this country. The US has got this right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585838/La...
NicD said:
I believe our troops while operating overseas should have immunity from any legal action in this country.
I would disagree that they should have carte blanche to do as they please without consideration of the law.However, I believe that any case against them should have good prima facie evidence before a trial is considered, to reduce speculative claims against them.
Scuffers said:
OK, I'm struggling with this?
how is it we are told legal aid payments are peanuts etc etc yet these cases seem to suggest millions in fees being picked up?
I'm thinking of the lot that represented Abu Hamza too...
what am I missing?
Isn't the answer in your statement, or implied there, m'lud....... Is it not lawyers themselves who are saying legal aid is peanuts, in defence of their own wallets? Surely the witnesses for the defence of that claim are unreliable? Nb - nothing in my post is meant to suggest that ALL lawyers only act in self interest, and any similarity to real lawyers anywhere is purely coincidence..... how is it we are told legal aid payments are peanuts etc etc yet these cases seem to suggest millions in fees being picked up?
I'm thinking of the lot that represented Abu Hamza too...
what am I missing?
got to be more to it than that?
not sure the exact figures (it's all here but hard to understand http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/422/pdfs/u... how does this end up in the millions?
not sure the exact figures (it's all here but hard to understand http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/422/pdfs/u... how does this end up in the millions?
Reported:
'Three years of investigations in to scores of allegations against British troops by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has so far resulted in a single fine for one soldier.
Sapna Malik, a partner at Leigh Day, said: "We are committed to representing people from around the world where an apparent injustice has been committed.
“It is imperative for the validity of the British Army that as lawyers we ensure these cases are thoroughly investigated and, if there has been unlawful behaviour, that it is identified, victims receive justice, the perpetrators are brought to account and lessons are learned.”
To MY way of thinking, the imperative for the British army is to not lose a conflict and to suffer minimal casualties. Anything else is a nice to have. The concept that we tax payers are funding this travesty is s
te.
If other countries don't want our military assistance on a best efforts, no sue basis than fk them, we will stay out. Let them kill each other - we should certainly have stayed out of both Iraq and Afgan.
This financially crippling charade that the UK always acts whiter than white must be brought under control and back to reality.
'Three years of investigations in to scores of allegations against British troops by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has so far resulted in a single fine for one soldier.
Sapna Malik, a partner at Leigh Day, said: "We are committed to representing people from around the world where an apparent injustice has been committed.
“It is imperative for the validity of the British Army that as lawyers we ensure these cases are thoroughly investigated and, if there has been unlawful behaviour, that it is identified, victims receive justice, the perpetrators are brought to account and lessons are learned.”
To MY way of thinking, the imperative for the British army is to not lose a conflict and to suffer minimal casualties. Anything else is a nice to have. The concept that we tax payers are funding this travesty is s
te.If other countries don't want our military assistance on a best efforts, no sue basis than f
k them, we will stay out. Let them kill each other - we should certainly have stayed out of both Iraq and Afgan.This financially crippling charade that the UK always acts whiter than white must be brought under control and back to reality.
A bit of a *bump* I know but millions of pounds of taxpayers funds later PIL have now closed down.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/ambulan...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37084030
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3740507/Le...
However other law firms are still around and the cases against British soliders continue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/23/th...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/ambulan...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37084030
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3740507/Le...
However other law firms are still around and the cases against British soliders continue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/23/th...
If a law firm genuinely feels they have a professional duty to be a public benefactor, or any responsibility towards those who feel badly treated by UK military, let them do whatever they can to gain redress. But let it be based on getting a result of guilty before they get any monetary return, and then at their normal everyday rates (for an agreed and fixed term trial) rather than 'legal aid'. At the moment the driving force behind their virtue-signalled enthusiasm seems to be a guarantee of huge funds whatever the result, even if no trial happens. It's not the lawyers, it's the assumption they are all our servants and honourable guardians and the heavily biased system they work under.
BlackLabel said:
However other law firms are still around and the cases against British soliders continue.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/23/th...
What a surprise!https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/23/th...
I can imagine the spam calls Iraqis get on their mobiles:
'Have you been the victim of brutality by British Forces? If so, no matter how spurious the allegation, we'll help you sex it up and take action to get the compensation YOU don't deserve. No Win? We still get our fee, so please call 1-800-BLOODSUCKERS now to get your free vexatious claim pack!'
The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) is an organisation set up to review and investigate allegations of abuse by Iraqi civilians by UK armed forces personnel in Iraq during the period of 2003 to July 2009.
£60m pissed away for nothing.
A civilian investigator searching for evidence of criminal abuses in a “witch hunt” against British troops in Iraq was charged and convicted after pretending to be a policeman to get on to a military base. The incident means that the only conviction linked to the controversial £60m Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) has so far been one of its own staff.
£60m pissed away for nothing.
A civilian investigator searching for evidence of criminal abuses in a “witch hunt” against British troops in Iraq was charged and convicted after pretending to be a policeman to get on to a military base. The incident means that the only conviction linked to the controversial £60m Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) has so far been one of its own staff.
alfabadass said:
Can't blame PIL for actions of dodgy soldiers abroad.
Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
Not sure you've actually read this specific thread's content?Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
The "War Crimes" that Shiner specialised in were, in very large part, made up ones, so he could bilk the government of lots of legal aid money. Not so much 'dodgy soldiers', more 'very dodgy lawyers'.
Mike_Mac said:
alfabadass said:
Can't blame PIL for actions of dodgy soldiers abroad.
Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
Not sure you've actually read this specific thread's content?Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
The "War Crimes" that Shiner specialised in were, in very large part, made up ones, so he could bilk the government of lots of legal aid money. Not so much 'dodgy soldiers', more 'very dodgy lawyers'.
alfabadass said:
Can't blame PIL for actions of dodgy soldiers abroad.
Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
True. However conspiring to invent claims severely undermines the whole legal process and harms potential valid claimants.Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
If found guilty, I hope the financial penalties are exceptionally severe to a) recover public money and b) strong deterrent.
Mike_Mac said:
alfabadass said:
Can't blame PIL for actions of dodgy soldiers abroad.
Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
Not sure you've actually read this specific thread's content?Commit war crimes, you pay the price. This should serve a lesson for us that we aren't above the law.
The "War Crimes" that Shiner specialised in were, in very large part, made up ones, so he could bilk the government of lots of legal aid money. Not so much 'dodgy soldiers', more 'very dodgy lawyers'.
The SRA carried out an investigation and 24 charges were made against Shiner.
He admitted to nine of them, and partially admitted to another nine of them.
The silence from these who supported him after the admissions is very telling.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff