Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

                                                    

By John Brace (Editor)

First publication date: 28th October 2021, 20:24 (BST, GMT+1).
Updated 29th October 2021 to add Kromberg declaration links

Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence
Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.

Please note that comments are turned off due to the ongoing nature of this case.

For the last 2 days (27th October 2021 and 28th October 2021) I have observed an appeal hearing
heard before the Lord Chief Justice (The Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of Maldon PC) and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Holroyde which is a judicial review from the earlier decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”) to the United States of America (“US”). This earlier decision was made in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser on 4th January 2021 (all 132 pages can be read on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website) by following this link.
Continue reading “Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America”

Mr Justice Nicol heard 2 applications from Johnny Depp’s barrister David Sherborne for relief from sanctions and an application for third party disclosure from Amber Heard

Mr Justice Nicol heard 2 applications from Johnny Depp’s barrister David Sherborne for relief from sanctions and an application for third party disclosure from Amber Heard

Mr Justice Nicol heard 2 applications from Johnny Depp’s barrister David Sherborne for relief from sanctions and an application for third party disclosure from Amber Heard

                                               

By John Brace (Editor)
and
Leonora Brace (Co-Editor)

First publication date: 6th July 2020, 19:12 (BST).
Note some bad language and swear words have been edited out from the published version at the request of LB.
Edited 8th July 2020: to add links, punctuation and minor changes.
Edited 10th July 2020: to correct spelling of Wooton to Wootton.

The decision arising from this hearing is [2020] EWHC 1734 (QB).

Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence
Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.

Please note that comments are turned off due to the ongoing nature of this case.

Earlier pieces published in this same case:-
Continue reading “Mr Justice Nicol heard 2 applications from Johnny Depp’s barrister David Sherborne for relief from sanctions and an application for third party disclosure from Amber Heard”

After Wirral Council ask for libel case to be immediately struck out, DJ Hennessy gives Claimant 3 weeks and chance to amend her Particulars of Claim first

After Wirral Council ask for libel case to be immediately struck out, DJ Hennessy gives Claimant 3 weeks and chance to amend her Particulars of Claim first

After Wirral Council ask for libel case to be immediately struck out, DJ Hennessy gives Claimant 3 weeks and chance to amend her Particulars of Claim first

                                      

Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018
Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018

This continues from yesterday’s report on Chalmers v Wirral Borough Council which was headlined DJ Hennessy refers to “traffic chaos” and criticises Wirral Council for not complying with a Court Order and covers what happened after the short adjournment.


The three Wirral Council employees (which included the solicitor Mr Bayatti) returned to the hearing room where DJ Hennessy was present. This time one of the three Wirral Council employees had a laptop which was passed around.

Mr Bayatti said that he hadn’t delivered the application to Mrs Chalmers on the day he had delivered copies of the application to the Birkenhead County Court.
Continue reading “After Wirral Council ask for libel case to be immediately struck out, DJ Hennessy gives Claimant 3 weeks and chance to amend her Particulars of Claim first”

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

                                  

I’m going to write a story now to show you how difficult it is to do investigative journalism in this country due to the legal framework here, as there are details I know about this story which is would be unlawful for me to publish.

There are two documents associated with this story so first I have to explain the background as to what they are and why I got them. The first is an invoice dated 13th January 2014 to Wirral Council from Lees Solicitors to Wirral Council for the sum of £535.20. This is for:

36 minutes preparation for a hearing at £160/hour 36 minutes which is £96 (+ VAT of £19.20) = £115.20

Counsel’s fee £350 (+VAT of £70) = £420

Grand total: £535.20

Due to legal restrictions *(*don’t you just love this country sometimes and their restrictions on the press?) although I know the names of the parties (such as the Applicant and Respondent) in this case, I’m not allowed to publish either of them on this blog. I cannot tell you who (although I know) the Applicant or Respondent are. In fact I’d better not tell you the date of the hearing, just in case you use that to somehow figure out who the Applicant and Respondent are. As far as I can tell (maybe I’m wrong) I’m not allowed to get a copy of or publish the Court Order (if there is one) that resulted from the hearing to consider the application.

This is openness and transparency in the local courts British style.

So why are Wirral Council paying £535.20 to Lees Solicitors for the legal work outlined in the invoice below? I think I’ve gone as far as I can do in answering that question as the rest would be educated guesswork.

Ironically I get more openness and transparency from Laura Quarry of the Family Court at Birkenhead than I get from Wirral Council in this matter in her letter to me dated 27th October 2014 (also below that the Wirral Council invoice). Mind you it is not hard to be more open and transparent than Wirral Council is it?

Laura Quarry states “Thank you for your letter dated 24th October 2014. This case is a Private Law Family matter. Therefore as you are not a party to this application, we cannot provide you with the documents you have requested. The documents you have requested refer to a civil matter and the case number you have provided is not a civil case number.

If you can provide us with a civil case number we can process your request. Please find enclosed your fee.”

If anyone would like to translate exactly what that means by leaving a comment, please do! I think I understand what she means although I may be wrong!

So which department is involved at Wirral Council in Family Court matters that the press aren’t allowed to write about? Why the Children and Young Peoples Department at Wirral Council of course! Who else?

In a recent change a few years ago, the press can be present at court hearings in the Family Court, however we’re still not allowed to report the details. The Family Court run to a different set of rules to the rest of the court system you see.

redacted invoice Wirral Council £535.20
redacted invoice Wirral Council £535.20
Letter from Birkenhead County Court dated 27th October 2014
Letter from Birkenhead County Court dated 27th October 2014

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.