Bloodied bodies of Iraqi insurgents shown in court as inquiry into 'Battle of Danny Boy' starts - Telegraph
We're back to allegations. When serious allegations are made, to treat them as though they were facts is a mistake as I have often said. The opposite side of the coin is to dismiss allegations out of hand and refuse to consider them, another kind of error. The Al-Sweady Inquiry is a demonstration of how to avoid falling into either error, and how to deal with the allegations properly. The ability to do this is quite rare in the world, and is one of the things which makes me proud to be British. I'm sure you agree ...
I am sorry but £31 million to get to the truth is taking the piss. Where did the £31 million end up ? Hang on a minute let me guess .......
They interviewed one of the solicitors asking whether he was going to apologise. Of course he said no, after having taken the tax payers money to advance a cash cow human rights case. About time they put an end to tax payers money (legal aid) being used for human rights cases.
Worth remembering that the present government inherited this pointless enquiry. It was ordered by Bob Ainsworth the defence secretary in the last Labour Government. I trust we shall be reminded of that fact when the opposition start braying tomorrow about wasted money.
The Telegraph are reporting that two chambers involved in this case could be investigated for their behaviour (allegedly acting deliberately extend the case) and possibly repay some of the money. Here's hoping.
"The inquiry included nearly £6 million of legal fees for lawyers. PIL earned nearly £1m in fees during the inquiry on top of an estimated £2 million during a earlier judicial review." So where did the other £25m go? In fact who came up with the £31m figure? Who does the accounting on enquiries like this? The whole thing sounds completely spurious. (A lot of accountancy is.)
£3m for a business with practically zero third party costs. Nice. These Human Rights cases are milked by everyone involved. Another reason why they deliberately extent cases for as long as possible. There's no incentive for anyone involved on either side of the bench to expedite the cases.
May be the firms should be asked to Tender for the Case, based on a Contract/Agreement. I really do not know how the fees are worked, an hourly rate?, may already be based on a fixed price.
Fees are on an hourly rate, which is on a sliding scale for seniority, experience (years) etc. HR lawyers are some of the most expensive, more than the tech/creative IP lawyers I pay (~£450-500ph). A senior lawyer will have a number of juniors under them doing all the donkey work like research, drafting, interviews and composing initial arguments. A senior lawyer will have a team made up of Ginders, Finders and Minders (their choice of words not mine).
The gov are trying to do this, but the whole legal system is against them. There's also issues within the system, barristers are essentially freelancers and rely on lawyers for their work, they can't (or shouldn't) solicit for trade directly. So they have to be commissioned by lawyers, some of which have a reputation for being slow/bad payers and barristers are not permitted to sue lawyers for late or non payment.
The Finders go out and secure work. The legal aid system does have parameters for fees, it's that they're currently generous and hourly based. In cases such as HR legal aid there's currently time no cap. The gov are looking to cap both hourly and total case budget fees.
To be fair, I do recall getting a fixed fee from the solicitors when we purchased property. I suppose there is little risk there whereas a large civil case for example, would be difficult to cost.
