NHS waves the Rev goodbye
Whilst all eyes were on the Court of Appeal last week, a little note containing big news was posted up on the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust website.
It announced Paula Vennells’ departure from the Trust. She has decided to step down as Chair due to “personal reasons“.
This is the third job Ms Vennells has lost-by-resigning since the completion of the Bates v Post Office group litigation on 16 Dec last year.
The timing is interesting, too. Does Ms Vennells’ departure have anything to do with the Clarke advice (and other documents), which she failed to inform the 2020 BEIS select committee inquiry about?
The judgment about the Clarke advice
I’m still waiting for the approved ruling on the rejection of my application for the Clarke advice. More than one person who knows more about these things than I do has said I might want to see if there’s a case for taking this to the Supreme Court. For that I would need representation.
The thing is, their lady and lordships at the Court of Appeal decided (according to the Daily Telegraph) not to give me the Clarke advice (despite my application being essentially unopposed by the Post Office) because:
“although the document was referred to in court, its contents were not relevant to any of the hearings so far“
The issue of relevance does not come up in Dring, a Supreme Court ruling which states:
“the court should consider an access request if the material was placed before it for the case and has been referred to in the court’s public proceedings, even if the material was not read out in court or treated as read out, or not read by the judge during the proceedings; and that where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose the case for allowing it will be particularly strong“
However CPD 5B.9(iv) invites the court to take into account:
“the stage of the proceedings at the time when the application is made“
and I presume that’s what did for me. I presume because I do not yet have the approved judgment.
Interestingly Lord Justice Picken, who was one of the judges making the decision against me, has also made a High Court ruling on Dring, which takes into account the Supreme Court Dring ruling and makes for very interesting reading.
If anyone reading this email:
a) thinks it might be worth taking my application for the Clarke advice to the Supreme Court
b) has experience of media law and/or the Supreme Court
c) is a barrister
d) likes working for neglible, risible and finite sums of cash
please get in touch.
I know – when I sell it like that…
Thanks
Thanks to everyone who has been so kind to donate recently and send words of encouragement, documents and ideas. I am sorry if I don’t get to respond personally to every email I get.
On the issue of donations, I really do appreciate the cash, but please, you only should donate once (or if you’re really super-keen, once a year). I would far rather get 2 new readers donating £20 each than a donation for £50 or £100 from someone who has contributed before.
If I need to do a fundraiser for something specific (which I may ahead of the five day Court of Appeal hearing in March next year), I’ll let you know. Otherwise, keep your money in your pocket, or give it to the many, many other deserving causes out there.
More news soon. I am whizzing up north in a few days to interview someone who was there on the inside in the early days of Horizon. We’ve chatted a couple of times on the phone. This time he’s prepared to go on the record.
There is still so much of this story to come out…
On y va!
Nick
PS The first trial in Bates v Post Office finished two years ago yesterday. Read my final court report here.