STATEMENT FROM PROFESSOR MALCOLM HOOPER
"I am dismayed by the YouTube attacks on Margaret Williams and wish to place on public record that to my certain knowledge they are both erroneous and defamatory. Those making these unfounded accusations are doing a great disservice to the whole ME community.
People have a right to know the facts. Margaret Williams does occasionally use and has published material using the pseudonym Julia Hamilton.
The exhibits to the witness statement of NICE’s solicitor Stephen Hocking from Beachcroft LLP in relation to NICE’s allegations about Julia Hamilton are also seriously erroneous.
Using the name Julia Hamilton, Margaret Williams did indeed contact NICE and the Legal Services Commission with a legitimate request for information that was in the public interest, but she did not say that she worked for either the LSC or for Leigh Day & Co. She did, however, say she was working with Leigh Day & Co, a fact confirmed by them on 9th February 2009 when Jamie Beagent wrote to her saying: “Your role and involvement….in the legal proceedings is perfectly proper”.
The failure to redact this erroneous information before the Court was entirely the fault of the lawyers involved and was not due to Margaret Williams or any other advisors to the Claimants.
Erroneous information has now entered the public domain and subsequently been used to mount misconceived and unjustified attacks on Margaret Williams’ privacy and character. Those making these attacks are ignorant of all the facts of the case and are acting maliciously.
The alleged misrepresentation of quotations from NICE’s witness Professor Anthony Pinching as set out in Beagent’s first witness statement (which attracted criticism from the Judge) lies with Beagent, not with Margaret Williams. Beagent chose not to heed the detailed quotations sent to him by Margaret Williams and made critical errors in his first witness statement of 8th December 2008. This was entirely Beagent’s own fault.
To the profound concern of the Claimants and all their advisors, the Claimants’ lawyers decided to ignore the 19 witness statements submitted at the last minute by NICE and the witness statement and exhibits of Stephen Hocking. The Claimants and their advisors urged their lawyers that it was imperative to address the issues they contained but their barrister, Jeremy Hyam, advised against doing so.
At the 11th hour, NICE issued very serious threats against both Jamie Beagent and Jeremy Hyam to the extent that, on the first day of the hearing and, without any discussion whatsoever with the Claimants or their advisors, they decided to withdraw a large portion of the Claimants’ evidence against NICE and to apologise to the Court and to NICE. The Claimants and their advisors believe this decision cost them the case which then had no hope of succeeding.
As a consequence, in April 2009 a substantial complaint was served upon both Jamie Beagent and Jeremy Hyam, which is currently before the Legal Complaints Service and the Bar Council Standards Board and is the subject of on-going action.
29th July 2009"
3 comments:
The full version of this statement is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/kl6u2k
Professor Hooper's statement on the 29th of July 2009 refers to "those making the attacks", presumably myself and Ciaran Farrell, as "acting maliciously" after those "attacks" were called "erroneous and defamatory".
Mr. Farrell essentially did three things:
1. He relayed parts of Mr. Stephen Hocking's witness statement.
2. Criticised the tactics employed by Margaret Williams/Julia Hamilton/Kate Stewart.
3. Relayed, again from Mr. Hocking's witness statement, that some of Mr. Jamie Beagent's witness statement was the work of Margaret Williams/Kate Stewart and not Beagent's.
As far as I am aware, Mr. Hocking's statement was not challenged in Court and not withdrawn. Therefore, unless I'm very much mistaken, it can be subject to public
scrutiny and debate now that the case is over and presumably that scrutiny and debate is applicable to any part of Mr. Hocking's statement.
I reject the claim that I have attacked anyone in this series and, for that matter, I also reject the claim that Mr. Farrell has either.
Gus Ryan, maker of the YouTube series "NICE Review?".
Response to a statement emanating from Prof. Malcolm Hooper of the 29th of
July forwarded by Stephen Ralph By Ciaran Farrell
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
I have written this statement in response to statements put out on the
internet by Prof. Malcolm Hooper. These statements were sent by Margaret
Williams to a list of recipients in the form of MS Word documents with a
request that they be circulated as widely as possible. Stephen Ralph then
forwarded the two statements dated the 29th of July and the 5th of August to
Co-Cure and he subsequently circulated the URLs to these documents for
locations in the files area of MEActionUK, the Yahoo Group he runs and
manages as both List Owner and Moderator.
The authorship of Prof. Hooper's statements
I contacted Prof. Hooper by email with an offer of discussing the situation
with him privately, but as of the 20th of August, I had received no response
from him.
However, Gus Ryan contacted Prof. Hooper on Sunday 9th of August 2009 and
Prof. Hooper replied the following day at 4.35pm. At 5.07pm Stephen Ralph
posted a forwarding of Prof. Hooper's reply to Gus Ryan on MEActionUK, the
list owned by Mr. Ralph.
Gus Ryan asked Prof. Hooper to confirm that the statements released in his
name were composed by him and only him. His answer was: "Both the statements
I issued were my full and final comments on the matter and I have nothing
further to add."
This however does not address the central issue of the authorship of Prof.
Hooper's statements as the statements concerned went bearing his name, and
therefore unless he were to disown them, he would have to acknowledge that
he had issued the statements. What he does not say is that he was the
author, or the sole author, or that he composed the statements himself. Nor
does he say how the statements were to be disseminated in order that they
could be published on the internet, and if another person was in any way
involved in any way with the production of the statements he 'issued'.
Therefore doubt about the authorship of Prof. Hooper's statements, as a
result of his being perhaps unwilling or unable to answer a simple question
with a simple answer, may exist.
An analysis of the Windows/Word file properties of the Word documents that
Margaret Williams sent to recipients for distribution reveals significant
doubts as to whether or not Prof. Hooper actually was the sole author of
these two statements. This led to an analysis of the language used in the
statements as well as the writing style being performed which indicates
through the use of certain phrases together with certain perspectives
expressed in the second statement in particular, that they are consistent
with the general writing style of Margaret Williams as being the author of
the statements rather than Prof. Hooper.
Therefore on the basis of this evidence, Prof. Hooper may not have been the
only author of these statements as they could have been a joint enterprise
with Margaret Williams, or that Margaret Williams may well have been the
author.
This statement is long and therefore to read the full version please use the
following URL : a4changingme.wordpress.com
Ciaran Farrell
Professor Hooper was right to issue this statement.
Having viewed the Youtube speech by Ciaran Farrell I feel that it was clearly an attack on Margaret Williams.
Ciaran Farrell is not a legal expert, he has no legal training but has tried to present himself as legally experienced by his limited input into an old housing dispute with the council.
This is obviously absurd.
The two events are not connected and Mr Farrell lacks the experience and judgement to make legal arguments based on that.
Margaret Williams produced some documents for the legal team working for the Judicial Review. It is common knowledge in the public domain.
She used her pen-name in her dealings with some agencies when collecting information. It would have been a mistake for her to use her real name as the lawyers acting for NICE knew exactly who she was.
This did not create a legal conflict or a "hostage to fortune" as Ciaran Farrell claims. There is no such legal term and no legal problem. Margaret Williams was not one of the plaintiffs and she is free to act how she sees fit.
Margaret Williams did a great job creating documents for the Judicial Review. It was an enormous pity that the lawyers did not take better care in using these documents.
Any idea of a legal problem is in the mind of Ciaran Farrell. He is not a lawyer and has no legal training or special knowledge.
The lawyer acting for the plaintiffs used part of a document created by Margaret Williams in his statement. He has acknowledged that this was his error and taken responsibility.
Margaret Williams is not responsible for this. To argue this would be simply ridiculous. She hasn't done anything wrong.
The lawyers acting for NICE have tried to insinuate that by using a false name she was somehow behaving dishonestly. It is a red herring and an attempt to stop Margaret Williams from being involved in other legal cases.
Although NICE's lawyers submitted some internal memos with some evidence with the "Hocking Statement", they have not released any recording or other evidence to back up their claims.
Regardless it is a red herring and has no bearing on the case. Margaret Williams is not one of the plaintiffs and is a private individual.
Margaret Williams has been producing documents and research using a pen-name for years and anyone with ME would understand that. We are all under the scrutiny of the DWP and other government agencies. I would use a pen-name to produce documents of this type.
Ciaran Farrell simply did not understand this and, as he lacks the legal sophistication and understanding, of how
NICE tried to block witness statements being used in court, he fell into the trap.
The Youtube speech by Ciaran Farrell is not based on legal knowledge, legal procedures and the arguments he makes are facile.
It should be removed and a apology given to Margaret Williams.
Post a Comment