Dougans’ terrible legacy

This entry is corrected on 29.7.10 at 13:30

 BryanCave puts the story on their own corporate website. They also speak of the case being struck out for abuse of process but the judge has explicitly said in his judgment that he doesn’t strike it out as abuse of process. See quote here again:  

“62………

Ms Kaschke entertains a genuine sense of grievance at having been incorrectly linked to the Baader-Meinhof gang in the sense of it having been stated that she was arrested on suspicion of being a member of it. Both Eady J and I have found that in circumstances where in each case it was made clear in the relevant article that she was not convicted and received compensation for wrongful imprisonment and where in each case the defendant(s) openly acknowledge that they were not suggesting that there was any underlying truth in the conduct of which she was suspected and where she has herself admitted that she was arrested on suspicion of membership of a criminal gang with terrorist aims she is unlikely to recover more than very modest damages. Given that I have held that the claim in this action should be struck out because in effect the game is not worth the candle, it does not seem to me to add anything to hold that the action is in addition an abuse of process on the separate ground that Eady J has reached a similar conclusion in the Osler action. ”

This is what BryanCave wrote on their website: “In a decision handed down by the High Court on July 23, Mr. Justice Stadlen ruled in favor of Bryan Cave client Alex Hilton, a well-known blogger and Labour Party activist. London Associate Robert Dougans represented Hilton, who was defending a libel claim brought against him by East London political activist Johanna Kaschke. Dougans also acted as the advocate at the hearing before Mr. Justice Stadlen, who ruled that Kaschke’s claim was an abuse of process and should be struck out.”

I have had, in the meantime, e-mails to correct me and it is a fact that the Judgment in paragraphs 21 and 41 rules that the case is struck out as abuse of process.

I do not think that this should be like that because what this judgment says, it says, that mud sticks and once you had mud on your sleeve you will never be able to wash it off.

In the terms of the abuse of process I do not agree that this is a correct way to dispose of the action.  I shall argue that point further at the permission to appeal procedure. I fail to understand how accusation by a government that were made in a different jurisdiction, under legislation that at not compatible with today’s legislation can have an impact on the person’s good character when that person never did anything wrong in any case.

But that just shows the kind of man Robert Dougans is, he is not exactly a Libertarian. Judge for yourself.  BryanCave. On that note the judge remarked how odd it is that Dougans claimed more expenses for his assistant female assistant than for himself.

You can see that it is permitted for English lawyers to bully you on ancient  facts. After all Dougans is a member of the English establishment now and is seen as practically infallible.

Looking at the quotes above, that rests on some alleged admittance on my part. I am absolutely not sure where I am supposed to have admitted something and in what context but it shows that alleged words are held strictly against me but are easily misinterpreted by Dougans and that’s OK then.

Further in respect of Fair Trial, we can see from BryanCave website that it took more than 5 lawyers to bring me down and previously Hilton had the assistance even from 2 other firms and Mr Nicklin, and as said Waterfront Partnership and MLS Chase Solicitors.  I quote from the BryanCave website:

“This victory was a team effort. Bryan Cave London office trainee Shamila Ashiq assisted in the preparation of this case and at the hearing. The renowned libel specialist William McCormick QC of Ely Place Chambers helped develop the successful arguments. Further thanks go to David Allen Green, of counsel at Preiskel & Co. and writer of the Jack of Kent blog, and to Joel Bennathan QC who offered to represent Hilton at trial, should it have been necessary, on a pro bono basis.”

I think the judgment is dodgy to be based on one sentence that is taken out of context. I shall appeal that. Mary Honeyball and the lawyers are proud that it took them over 2 years to get a litigant in person down and in total 5 law firms, 1 barrister and several law students and assistants.

There is a significant chance that there was a misinterpretation of the law, namely the alleged admittance as “quoted above”, is related to a charge that was brought under laws as they were in 1975 in Germany, laws that are incompatible with today’s Human Rights Act. Today such charges could not be brought against a person with the same set of circumstances. Yet the Defendants and the court make it sound as if such charges could be brought today under today’s laws. So that is an avenue to explore for me, and I am open about this because I am not the sort of person that throws in last-minute arguments as the bunch of lawyers for Mr Hilton did it with me.

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. flayman
    Jul 27, 2010 @ 10:13:16

    “Given that I have held that the claim in this action should be struck out because in effect the game is not worth the candle, it does not seem to me to add anything to hold that the action is in addition an abuse of process on the separate ground that Eady J has reached a similar conclusion in the Osler action.”

    What Justice Stadlen is in effect saying here is that he does not feel the need to add that this action is an abuse of process because a Justice has already ruled that in a similar and related case. You really ought to have legal representation. Representing yourself without understanding of the law is at best a false economy.

    • Johanna Kaschke
      Jul 27, 2010 @ 13:49:24

      You are correct Flayman, I was clutching at straws, I had only read the last paragraph and that didn’t seem absolutly conclusive on the point but paras 21 and 41 are.
      To the finance of the lawyer, I think its immensely unfair that Osler got a free pro bono lawyer (Mr Dougans who volunteered to protect him) when Osler was working and earned good money both from work and his left-wing publications, and I, when I was in receipt of Carer’s allowance at the time and could not be asked to make regular payments in the region that lawyers wanted to represent me. I think it is grossly unfair and that unfairness led to that judgment for Osler that then led to the judgment on Gray and Hilton and Dougans argued that Justice Stadlen simply has no other option but to find the same as Eady J did.

Blog Stats

  • 54,341 hits