"the bill excludes cases which have been considered by the Court of Appeal" Have any who successfully appealed been compensated in full, including the legal costs of the original trial and of the Appeal, which would never have been incurred but for the PO acting as they did?
Does this prevent the parties to the Bates litigation, whose compensation mostly went in costs, from getting those costs back?
As I have been asserting repeatedly, how “wholly (sic) unique” can this genre of injustice be? To continue to insist so is to do serious violence to the English language. And- at the additional risk of being a nuisance- what of the rumblings and more about Capture? Why should it be assumed that those additional anxieties are capable of being put quietly to bed? Because of mere Post Office and governmental assurances? The air was for years (?) thick with those, only for them to have been found to be -at least- airy and over confident and at worst cynically self serving or else, having bracketed that particular target, somewhere in between those two descriptions. Baroness Carr’s stance of expedited appeal hearings with extra resources sunk into expedited scrutiny of each case in my firm view HAS to be the preferred and- let us face it- “rule of law” safeguarding way to proceed.
"the bill excludes cases which have been considered by the Court of Appeal" Have any who successfully appealed been compensated in full, including the legal costs of the original trial and of the Appeal, which would never have been incurred but for the PO acting as they did?
Does this prevent the parties to the Bates litigation, whose compensation mostly went in costs, from getting those costs back?
As I have been asserting repeatedly, how “wholly (sic) unique” can this genre of injustice be? To continue to insist so is to do serious violence to the English language. And- at the additional risk of being a nuisance- what of the rumblings and more about Capture? Why should it be assumed that those additional anxieties are capable of being put quietly to bed? Because of mere Post Office and governmental assurances? The air was for years (?) thick with those, only for them to have been found to be -at least- airy and over confident and at worst cynically self serving or else, having bracketed that particular target, somewhere in between those two descriptions. Baroness Carr’s stance of expedited appeal hearings with extra resources sunk into expedited scrutiny of each case in my firm view HAS to be the preferred and- let us face it- “rule of law” safeguarding way to proceed.