Why don’t you make them public then?
-
-
-
Why didn’t you?
-
Because they're not mine to release. Just as John can't release them. It's up to Nicky
-
If you knew that Nicky is the only person with the right to put the transcripts into the public domain, why were you suggesting to John that he act unethically? Incitement like that puts your probity and credibility further into question.
-
My concern would be that it seems entirely possible to be in contempt of court if transcripts were to be released without thought. Reporting restrictions may require redaction. Journalists would know more about that than me though.
-
Unless there was a s4(2) contempt of court act order in place at the time (which would postpone not prohibit fair and accurate reporting) it’s unlikely the transcripts would be confidential to extent they reflect things said in open court. Possible but would be unusual.
-
Interesting, thank you. How are matters of innocent parties addressed in all this? Say for example if details of somebody's children were to be mentioned during background, would some sort of restriction not apply to the publication of that aspect? All new to me, this.
-
Nope. General rule is if it’s open court it’s in public domain unless you are successful in obtaining a reporting restriction at the time. And presumption is open justice. If you’re bored w/transcripts have a read of Supreme Court case Khuja: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/49.html …
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@djnicholl@deb_cohen I am looking forward to your conclusions and to see whether they are nearer his Mum's or the drs -
Mum and doctor corroborated each other about what happened on the day. It’s never been a case of doctor denying what happened. The issue has always been about whether a criminal conviction is right
-
They definitely don't agree about whether she should continue to be a dr and how much the system is to blame.
-
You won’t get all the systems failures from the court transcript because they weren’t all heard.
-
All the ones that were of significance were heard. But you already knew that Deb.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/1049232400197271552?s=21 …
-
Significance comes down to legal argument and Andrew Thomas QC is a cracking barrister. I do think it's a shame that the SUI wasn't heard in its entirety and then all this conversation would be redundant
-
Andrew Thomas QC may well be a cracking barrister, but I'll stick with the view of Sir Brian Leveson & colleagues from the High Court judgement I think. And regarding the SUI report, let's not forget
#BawaGarba 's defence agreed to it not being included.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/1040624475077844992?s=21 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
ZHH .... Shouldn’t they be freely available? I wonder who I ask for my copy
-
They were extortionate. John and I looked at ways to raise the funds for them. Glad he succeeded
-
Nothing to do with me. Yes, I was desperate to get hold of them, but it's
#JackAdcock 's poor family that have had to pay for this out of their own pocket to expose the truth. W/o the benefit of a global crowd funding effort to support them. It's@victoradcock2 we have to thank. -
ZHH That simply cannot be a
#JustCulture -
Tweet unavailable
-
They removed it after myself & lots of friends had lots to say about it. They couldn’t delete our comments (truth) quick enough so removed the post altogether. That’s guilt for you
-
Have you asked them? May not be as underhanded as might appear on face of it.
-
I think it’s a stretch to ask that to be honest Cathy. Are they really so heartless that they think a bereaved family will feel nothing about a doctor thanking their whole profession for funding their legal appeal when the family have had to remortgage to pay inquest fees?
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.