Samantha Symes on LinkedIn: Israel tells U.S. it will retaliate against Palestinian Authority if ICC… (2024)

“No-one wanted to provide Mrs Misra with a ticket - to use your words - to the Court of Appeal.'”This is what happens when it is all about winning not what is right.

3

I’m pleased to see this. Now hopefully the arrest warrants. “The International Criminal Court's prosecutor's office called on Friday for an end to what it called intimidation of its staff, saying such threats could constitute an offence against the world's permanent war crimes court.”

15

2 Comments

I would like to say I’m not sure why it is people get themselves into the position of deceiving courts and judicial bodies but all I know is people do it often and it starts always with the first time they compromise duties. Then the second and so on …In recent days I once again saw a privileged senior lawyer bullsh*t a judge with a certain degree of the impunity that only comes with the we are all in it together and we don’t give a f*** because we all do it and we never get told off because that requires another trial with someone who wants to put in the effort to discipline us. I once again put in the evidence to demonstrate an absolutely brazen false statement to the court ….Indeed I recently saw a barrister say just that to a judge . It’s not your job to judge whether in this case our client is committing perjury … or words to that effect. As if a judge never has referred an obvious crook to the police.or regulators. Well actually I think sometimes they can and sometimes they do …I am reminded of a recent discussion with a senior litigator as to whether the profession attracts or creates psychopaths. I won’t repeat our conclusion or where they end up in life.But to answer Dr Day’s question on this occasion there will likely be a symbolic offering up to the public with a burning on a stake or two, but generally speaking the system protects its own provided they lie and don’t break rank.

One of the challenges of the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act 1996 is that in the regime of whistleblowing it forces employees and workers to proceed through normal civil channels whilst they are witnesses to potential crimes and may be simultaneously dealing with criminal or regulatory reports and investigations that are more appropriately dealt with confidentially. Indeed the very short limitation periods from bringing a claim for detriment makes that quite likely.What the Act often does therefore is expose witnesses to crime, or victims of crime, to the very criminals who have committed the crimes and those who are giving them shelter. Sometimes this can be serious crime. Mafia, multi-million or even multi-billion frauds, bribes, human trafficking or even involuntary manslaughter.In such circ*mstances ostensibly without prejudice communications in a civil context can just become a meaningless forum (often in fact lacking privilege) where victims have to act in good faith and the offenders act in bad faith as they are really seeking to cover up the potential crime by duress. Representations as to whether police or regulatory reports have been made are often sought in settlements so this cannot be ignored.When attempts to rewrite history fail, the solicitors may engage in meaningless back and forth communication with offers not reasonably capable of acceptance to give the appearance of trying to satisfy the requirement of good faith. Certainly in cases I have seen employers have attempted to preserve the ability to impose detriments and to generally harass in respect of police reports going forwards. Which is contrary to the intent of the legislation and likely to prevent any settlement.Basically what it means is the Employment Tribunals are being used to shelter and facilitate criminal activity to give cover to what can in some cases amount to witness harassment and/or criminal harassment.Some of the solicitors doing this are committing criminal offences, indeed one wonders how judges can turn a blind eye to it given their own responsibilities.Whatever it is, my discussions with various whistleblowers over recent years suggest that fundamentally it is a problem that the Tribunals appear not to be suited to addressing and which some of the legal profession seem to be illequipped to address. Particularly the civil lawyers that themselves gaily dabble in perverting justice and have no experience themselves of criminal process or the criminality they are conspiring to inflict on the victims.Indeed judging by my dealings over the years with NDAs, and the findings of the Solicitors Regulation Authority thematic review, too often those negotiating NDAs are not equipped with either the commercial understanding of the NDAs they use, or the applicable criminal law, to negotiate them lawfully.Basically PIDA is a blunt instrument being wielded in some cases against victims of crime rather than for their benefit.

3

Another excellent piece by Richard. This time illustrating what can happen when a General Counsel starts to disagree with reckless commercial directors. Stress, ill health and how do you exit without getting your life and career screwed over by criminal miscreants who are covering up is the usual problem. Miscreants are normally happy to sign NDAS for payoffs then withhold information from courts in return for indemnities to cover up their criminal or reckless behaviour. Pacts with the devil implemented by lawyers who replicate this perversion of justice over and over again.All well illustrated by the Post Office scandal.