Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support
Home | Profile | Register | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 JABS Forum
 News and Comment
 URGENT for FORMER UK MMR LITIGANTS
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 8

Janet

429 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  16:45:46  Show Profile  Send Janet an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Am I right in thinking you cannot file a complaint if you were not receiving Legal Aid before the appeal in 2004 but awaiting the outcome?
If so I would rather contact my MP than do nothing about this blatant conflict of interest.

Thanks to John Stone for the information and well done!


Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  23:04:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Just to remind people that they should get on and write to their MPs as well as complain officially, and that others not party to the litigation can do this as well. Very important to get our voices heard even by unsympathetic MPs. Get up the volume of coplaints. Not a bad idea to copy the Evening Standard report transcribed by GUS above, which is the best jounalistic account we have. When writing to an MP by e-mail do not forget to give a full address and telephone number. And if you can let me know if you have done either thing it will help (JohnDanStone@googlemail.com) . As yet I know of no more than dozen completed complaints, but I can also report frenetic and that we will probably succeed in reaching all the claimants.

Edited by - John Stone on 05/10/2007 23:22:48
Go to Top of Page

RGallup

USA
1 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  00:28:11  Show Profile  Visit RGallup's Homepage  Reply with Quote
God Bless John Stone for bringing out this information.

This Nigel Davis sounds like the type we have over across the pond in the USA, land of the free, home of the brave.

Ray Gallup
http://www.vaproject.org
highnoon@gti.net
Go to Top of Page

Janet

429 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  10:09:00  Show Profile  Send Janet an AOL message  Reply with Quote
File it and let them tell you cant ..I cant see why not the complaint is about brotherly crooks setting up millions of kids for death and
destruction..its mass murder.

Absolutely agree with you Gus and thanks for your reply.
Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1379 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  11:46:36  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Daily Mail 9 May 2007

Ephraim Hardcastle writes in his column:

In 2004 a top judge, Mr Justice Davis, decided that parents worried about an autism link with the MMR vaccine could not have legal aid in their fight for compensation. Campaigners have now discovered that Justice Davis is the brother of Sir Crispin Davis. And who is he? Why, a director of pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline - which is one of the makers of the MMR vaccine. Piccolo mundo, as my Italian friends say.
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  22:50:33  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
John it wasnt me that transcribed it was E .Thanks and well done you for all the work you do!Many thanks
Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 05/12/2007 :  23:44:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks Gus.

I would to sugest circulating to interested polticians Clifford Miller's documentary study 'Questions on the Independence and reliability of Cochrane Review, with a Focus on Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vacccine'.

http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/millerc.pdf

Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1379 Posts

Posted - 05/14/2007 :  13:45:37  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JIF1PZYKDAF3VQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/10/nlaw110.xml

Telegraph 10/5/07:
Law: Brief Encounters

Judges should always declare any interest they may have in the outcome of a hearing. That's the moral of a case involving Mr Justice Davis, who dismissed a challenge against the body that funds legal aid in 2004. It was brought by parents who had been refused funds to sue drug companies over allegations that the MMR vaccine had damaged their children.

The previous year, Sir Crispin Davis, chief executive of the company that owns The Lancet, became a non-executive director of drug company GlaxoSmithKline. He turns out to be the judge's brother. A spokesman for the judge said: "At the date of the hearing before Mr Justice Davis, the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him. If he was wrong, any possible remedy must be sought from the Court of Appeal."

Go to Top of Page

jabsadmin

1379 Posts

Posted - 05/14/2007 :  13:47:36  Show Profile  Visit jabsadmin's Homepage  Reply with Quote
JABS complaint to the Office of Judicial Complaints

I would like to lodge a complaint on behalf of the JABS group (Justice Awareness & Basic Support) a support group for parents of vaccine damaged children. I have learned that Mr Justice Davis who presided over the appeal hearing of MMR/MR group litigation over the decision by the Legal Services Commission to remove funding for the cases had a serious potential conflict of interest in that his brother Sir Crispin Davis had been appointed non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline. GlaxoSmithKline is one of the defendants in the MMR/MR litigation. A High Court judge ought never to be allowed to preside over hearing and sitting in judgement where his brother was so closely associated with one of the defendants.

I am surprised that the judge failed to declare this potential conflict of interest and that this was not entered in any Register of Interests. A matter of such enormous importance which concerned the lives of some 1400 children and apparently "did not occur" to Mr Justice Davis reflects badly on the judicial system.

Mr Justice Davis' brother was also CEO of Reed Elsevier, publishers of the medical journal 'The Lancet', which suddenly changed position with regard to Dr Andrew Wakefield and removed support for a published report. This was particularly sensitive as it was happening in the days immediately preceding and during the hearing and the MMR controversy and the Lancet's repudiation of Dr Wakefield had been dominating the national news.This prompted attacks on Dr Wakefield's integrity by the Chief Medical Officer and the Prime Minister. As Dr Wakefield was a main expert witness on behalf of the litigants, and it was Dr Wakefield's scientific evidence that Mr Justice Davis was trying, it is very surprising that he did not notice a problem.

Also as a matter of interest Mr Justice Davis' brother was knighted four months later.

JABS feels that, in the interest of all the children who lost legal aid based on Mr Justice Davis' decision, the children should have an opportunity for a fresh appeal.

Jackie Fletcher

JABS National Co-ordinator
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 05/14/2007 :  20:56:40  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Many thanks Jackie a reply is due 29th May as below from the Office of Judicial Complaints (DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH, RIGHT!)

From: Customer OJC
Date: 09/05/2007 11:06:10
To: xxxxx
Subject: Your complaint

Dear Mr xxxx,

RE: Your complaint, ref. xxxxxxxxxx2007

Thank you for your email of 7 May.


Your correspondence was received today and will be referred to one of our caseworkers who will consider the matters that you raise and send you a response by 29 May. If for any reason, we cannot meet this target, we will write to you again, informing you of the cause of delay and by when you can expect to receive a reply.


If, in the meantime, you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us.




Yours sincerely,



Andi Thomas

Office of Judicial Complaints

4th Floor, Clive House, 70 Petty France, London SW1H 9HD

T 020 7189 2935 / F 020 7189 2936

http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk


Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 05/14/2007 20:58:18
Go to Top of Page

Janice

United Kingdom
1 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  21:24:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Congratulations to John Stone for such excellent detectivework. Well done.
I have today lodged a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints and with my local MP.
Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 05/22/2007 :  08:44:06  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
And the latest lies my reply first

Dear Mr Hochfelder

Thank you for your reply.I utterly dispute what you say .If indeed this conflict of interest had been declared going by your own rules he would not have been able to preside in the proceedings.I cannot see how his connection with the pharma companies could have possibly fail; to influence his decision. So going by what your saying it would have been just fine if my brother had been the Judge and found in favor of the claimants and reinstating legal aid.Could you be more clear are you now saying we need to appeal the decisiion.

Yours Sincerely

-------Original Message-------

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your letter, below.

Unfortunately, the Office for Judicial Complaints has no powers to intervene in the judicial process. Accordingly, we cannot assist as you request.

We shall explain our remit in more detail in future correspondence. For now, I would just explain that our responsibilities extend only to considering the personal behaviour of judicial officers, not their decisions, which are of course subject to the appeals process. Accordingly, we are currently looking into the allegation that Mr Justice Davis did not declare an interest in the February 2004 proceedings and considering whether he should have, if indeed he did not do so. This will have and can have no bearing upon the decision he took in those proceedings.

As I indicated in my letter, I shall be writing to you further as our investigation continues.

Yours sincerely

Henry Hochfelder
Office for Judicial Complaints

Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 05/26/2007 :  20:24:14  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
From the CMC High Court London this week 23rd May 2007 held in public so cant see any problem with this posting if so ...you all will still speak to me...


MR GIBSON: In February 2004.

23 MR JUSTICE KEITH: --- dismissing the claim for
24 judicial review in January 2004. That is as I read it.

25 MR GIBSON: Yes, and as I understand it, the second

14


1 of those is said to be on the grounds of bias or at
2 least potential bias or the perception of bias.
3 MR JUSTICE KEITH: There was a conflict of interest

4 which should have prevented Mr Justice Davis from
5 hearing the claim, yes.

6 MR GIBSON: Yes. So that I hope fairly and
7 comprehensively sets out the evidence before you in the
8 xxxxxx case.
9 MR JUSTICE KEITH: Yes.
10 MR GIBSON: My Lord, could we now turn to look at the
11 evidence in the xxxxxx case because they, we submit,

12 really stand or fall together. If you would turn to

13 our skeleton argument again, and paragraph 10, page ---



Edited by - GUS THE FUSS on 05/26/2007 20:31:45
Go to Top of Page

John Stone

United Kingdom
1254 Posts

Posted - 05/27/2007 :  18:06:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This is the text of my complaint to the OJC (which I have been told is now being investigated):

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to complain about Mr Justice Davis hearing the application from MMR litigants asking to have their legal aid restored in February 2004.

Sir Nigel does not deny knowing of the conflict, so presumably he must have known about another potential conflict in that his brother had for much longer, and more prominently been CEO of Reed Elsevier, publishers of the Lancet. This was particularly sensitive during the days immediately preceding the hearing, and while it was going on, as the MMR controversy and the Lancet's repudiation of Andrew Wakefield had been dominating the national news, with attacks on Wakefield's integrity by the Chief Medical Officer and the Prime Minister. As Wakefield was the principal prosecution expert in the MMR litigation, and it was Wakefield's science that Mr Justice Davis was trying, it is surprising he did not notice a problem.

Mr Justice Davis states through his spokesman that "At the date of the hearing the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him". It is most troubling that someone of Mr Justice Davis's intellectual competence and training could think himself above interest, or failed to consider what the plaintiffs or the public might have thought if this relationship had been known, particularly as "conflict of interest" was at the centre of Wakefield controversy which was then raging. But he chose even more controversially not to make it known and to go ahead with the case.

It is interesting to note that in theory the thing he most compromised was the defence case. We do not presently know whether they will be making a complaint against Mr Justice Davis and, of course, their internal affairs are beyond our speculation. But the plaintiffs and the public will be left with impression that they may very well have known and sat on their hands when Mr Justice Davis heard the case. And, indeed, the practical effect is that years later it will be very hard to restore the case in a way which could be considered fair and satisfactory to the plaintiffs. These proceedings are very hard things for ordinary citizens and families to endure, and very easy for multi-national companies, even disregarding the discrepancy in resources. The plaintiffs who were part of a class action are now scattered to the four winds.

This comes back to the very old-fashioned idea of justice being seen to be done. Irrevocably, it is very hard to see how this could ever now happen in this case except in a piecemeal way. The issue of whether ordinary citizens have real rights or protection anymore against the powerful also arises. The Legal Services Commission is now widely viewed as a politicised body. I believe that Mr Justice Davis made a grave error and if the Office for Judicial Complaints fails to take this view the consequences will be immeasurable for the reputation of British justice.

I write not as someone who was party to this litigation but as an autism parent who fears for the future of medical science in the hands of commercial forces, the future of justice and the protection of the public interest, and above all the future of our families in the face of indifferent or hostile government. It was also I who discovered this unfortunate matter.

A pdf of the Evening Standard story of 9 May 2007 is attached.

Yours faithfully,

John Stone








Go to Top of Page

GUS THE FUSS

United Kingdom
1469 Posts

Posted - 05/30/2007 :  12:42:23  Show Profile  Visit GUS THE FUSS's Homepage  Reply with Quote
Well said John much appreciated..
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 8 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Jabs - Justice, Awareness and Basic Support © 2000-2002 Snitz Communications Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05