Monday provided a rare spectacle for the Place We All Know And Love, as the University of Salford continued to pursue their libel case against the author of blog 'The Rat Catchers Of The Sewers' (now closed down).
Things took a turn for the truly bizzare when one member of the public - there to support one of the presumed defendants, Dr Gary Duke - was found carrying a knife in his pocket after being searched at the Court entrance. He was quickly turned away by security and told to dispense with the weapon - which he possibly buried somewhere - before returning and being admitted to the building, there go about his normal business.
The hearing was supposed to decide whether or not to grant a Court Order and issue a Letter of Request to the Superior Court of California to try to compel the Californian hosts of the blog, Automatic Inc., to disclose the IP and user data for the Blog's creator and contributors.
This was rendered null and void when, literally minutes before the hearing was set to commence, Counsel for the Claimants produced a copy of an Affadavit from the Chief Executive Officer of Automatic. Inc supplying the requested IP data and user email account (the email account did not identify the author).
Yes, that's right, Automatic Inc., whose privacy policy states "your privacy is critically important to us" and "we don't share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law", did not even bother to wait for a Court Order (the costs for which they are not liable) and simply handed out IP data voluntarily.
The hearing was then simply an opportunity for Counsel for the Claimant to update on progress and for the Defendant to clarify the procedure henceforth. The case was adjourned until 21st December, where the Judge will decide whether to grant a Court Order against Virgin Media requiring them to disclose the User Account associated with the IP address acquired.
Present was one Ian 'Daffyd' Austin who, inbetween taking what looked to us like life-or-death calls on his mobile, fought back indigestion and muffled his way through the hearing with the occasional instruction to his Barrister, intermittently removing his glasses and sinking his head into his hands for some forceful 'eye rubbing' maneuvres.
Austin could be forgiven were he not totally focused on the task at hand, as that same morning news emerged via The Lawyer that the creditors of Halliwells LLP have formed a committee to decide who deserves the legal and financial equivalent of a Glasgow Kiss. There is a very real possibility that the creditors may try and pursue the former Equity Partners (including Austin) for personal liability for the truly enormous quantities of debt amassed by the LLP before its demise.
Given that Austin was party to the decision to trouser the property windfall from the Spinningfields' Landlords, and the decision to secretly change the LLP deed, he would have good cause to be concerned.
The Claimant's Barrister - whose name escapes us - looked like a cross between Alan "Not-For-Profit" Rusbridger and Jeffrey Lebowski, and proved eminently deferential to District Judge Smith throughout the hearing. He made a particular point about the enormous costs run up by the University in pursuing this libel case, emphasising that the author of the blog in question will be charged with these costs (although how such a person would actually supply the quantity of money necessary he did not touch upon).
So it's good to see Salford pursuing a worthwhile cause. If it were to transpire that their target suspect - Dr Gary Duke - was indeed the author of the blog, how exactly they hope to win back both their court costs and whatever sum of damages might be awarded from an unemployed lecturer - who they themselves fired not too long back - is something of a mystery.
That said, there is still the possibility that this case may never reach trial. District Judge Smith instructed Ian Austin to supply witness statements either from the Claimants or from a Solicitor acting on express instruction that explains whether or not the statements complained of are "arguably false".
Given that evidence emerged as recently as last week that might vindicate some of the allegedly defamatory statements, do not be surprised if 21st December is the last heard of this case.
More interesting still is that Counsel for the Claimant seemed to imply in a written submission to District Judge Smith that - once the user data has been acquired - they might want to enter into mediation rather than go straight to trial.
Watch this space.
No comments:
Post a Comment