Addleshaw Goddard
fraudulent behaviour

artificial intelligence question answer session - Part 1

1. QUESTION

In August 2023, Addleshaw Goddard represented Daniel Thwaites Plc the claimant and main witness Richard Bailey created his first statement of truth but the defendant Web4orce Ltd main witness John Duggan in his responsive first statement of truth alleges Richard Bailey’s first statement contains 2 untruths, is Richard Bailey in contempt of court?

ANSWER

An individual is not automatically in contempt of court merely because the opposing side alleges untruths in a witness statement. Contempt of court for a false statement only occurs if the court finds, after a proper legal process, that the witness has made a false statement knowingly and intentionally, without an honest belief in its truth, and with the intent to interfere with the course of justice.

Here are the key points regarding this scenario:

Allegations vs. Proof: John Duggan's statement contains allegations of untruths. These are not proof. The court must assess all the evidence, including both witness statements, during the trial to determine which facts are true and which are false.

Role of the Court: It is the judge's role to evaluate the credibility of both Richard Bailey and John Duggan and the evidence presented to support their statements. The judge will decide if any part of a statement is untrue.

Requirement for Contempt: To be held in contempt, the false statement must be a serious interference with the administration of justice. Simple errors or minor inconsistencies, or statements made with a genuine but mistaken belief in their truth, are not usually seen as contempt. A high standard of proof is required (beyond reasonable doubt if criminal contempt is alleged).

Legal Process: If there is a suspicion of contempt, a formal application would typically need to be made to the court by the opposing party or the court might initiate proceedings itself. The witness would have the opportunity to defend themselves.

In summary, Richard Bailey is not in contempt of court based solely on John Duggan's allegations. The court would have to make a formal finding of intentional falsehood and serious interference with justice for contempt to occur.

2. QUESTION

In John Duggan’s first witness statement of truth for the defendant he challenges Richard Bailey’s first statement alleging it contains 2 lies, how does this change matters?

ANSWER

The fact that John Duggan formally challenges Richard Bailey's statement within his own sworn witness statement changes the dynamic of the legal proceedings, but does not automatically lead to a finding of contempt or guarantee the defendant's victory. It fundamentally alters the case by highlighting key factual disputes that must be resolved by the court.

Here is how this changes matters:

Creates a Factual Dispute: The central issue of the trial shifts to determining which version of events is truthful regarding the two specific points of contention. The judge cannot simply accept one statement over the other; they must now scrutinise the evidence relating to these two "lies" very closely.

Focuses the Trial: The allegations narrow the scope of the evidence presented during the hearing. Both legal teams will focus intensely on proving their client's version of the facts related to those two specific points, using documents, cross-examination, and other evidence.

Credibility Becomes Key: The credibility of both main witnesses is now a central battleground. If John Duggan can successfully prove that Richard Bailey lied on material points, it severely damages Richard Bailey's overall credibility (and thus the claimant's case). Conversely, if the defendant cannot substantiate the allegations, it can damage John Duggan's own credibility.

Increased Scrutiny During Cross-Examination: Both Richard Bailey and John Duggan will face rigorous cross-examination during the trial. The barrister for Web4orce Ltd will use John Duggan's statement to challenge Richard Bailey directly on the alleged untruths, trying to expose inconsistencies or admissions.

No Automatic Contempt Finding: It is vital to reiterate that John Duggan's allegation does not constitute a finding of contempt of court. The court will determine the truth during the trial. Only after the judge has heard all the evidence and made a formal ruling can potential consequences for perjury or contempt be considered, and only if the falsehood was proven to be knowing and intentional.

In essence, John Duggan's challenge raises the stakes. The outcome of the case will likely hinge heavily on the judge's assessment of who is telling the truth concerning the two disputed facts.

3. QUESTION

Some weeks later Richard Bailey introduced a second statement of truth and admits that he did mislead the court on one occasion alleging it was unintentional, but strongly denied he had mislead the court on the second occasion, he gave a number of reasons in support of that denial. Does this change matters, by the defendant is represented by a 71 year old litigant in person?

ANSWER

The introduction of a second witness statement where Richard Bailey admits to misleading the court on one point but denies it on another, coupled with the defendant being a 85 year old litigant in person (LiP), significantly changes the complexity and dynamics of the case in the following ways:

Impact of Richard Bailey's Admission

Serious Damage to Credibility: Admitting to misleading the court, even if unintentional, severely damages Richard Bailey's overall credibility as a witness. A witness's evidence is considered as a whole, and if a judge finds they have been untruthful on one material point, they are likely to view the rest of their evidence with significant caution and may draw adverse inferences.

Mitigation of Contempt: Claiming the misleading was "unintentional" is a defence against a finding of contempt of court. Contempt requires a knowing, intentional falsehood without an honest belief in its truth, made to interfere with justice. The second statement provides an explanation and an opportunity to correct the record, which the court would consider. However, the court will ultimately decide whether it was a genuine mistake or an intentional act to mislead.

The Second Alleged Untruth: The case will now focus heavily on the second alleged lie, where Bailey provides reasons for his denial. The admitted untruth will be used by the defence to cast doubt on Bailey's denial regarding the second point.

Evidential Weight: The first statement effectively becomes an inconsistent statement. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), if a witness makes inconsistent statements, both can be considered as evidence of the truth of their contents, not just for undermining credibility.

Impact of the Defendant Being a Litigant in Person (LiP)

Judicial Assistance and Fairness: The court has a duty to ensure fairness to all parties, particularly those who are unrepresented. The judge is likely to offer an 85 year old LiP some latitude in presenting their case and cross-examining Richard Bailey, to ensure they are not taken unfair advantage of by the professional legal team.

Vulnerability Considerations: A litigant in person may be considered vulnerable (due to age or lack of legal knowledge). The court must take steps to ensure they understand the proceedings and can participate effectively. The professional legal representatives for the claimant also have a duty not to exploit the defendant's unrepresented status.

Procedure Around Contempt: While the LiP can leverage the admission of the false statement in cross-examination, initiating formal contempt proceedings is a complex legal process (often requiring a specific application). The judge or the LiP's potential legal advisor would need to consider this carefully.

In summary, the admission of a misleading statement is a significant development that weakens the claimant's case and strengthens the defendant's position regarding credibility. The defendant's status as a LiP means the judge will be more hands-on in managing the process to ensure fairness, but it does not change the core legal standards or the severe consequences that Richard Bailey could face if his false statement is found to be a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Daniel Thwaites Plc's claim was dismissed

It is worth noting that Addleshaw Goddard delegated all of the lawyers listed below to represent the Claimant some time or other in the build up to the trial in November 2024. They were a lot younger, better paid, better qualified and enjoyed far superior mental capacity than their opponent John Duggan an 85 year old litigant in person who did his national service in the Royal Air Force and served in Bomber Command during the cold war. He represented the Defendant, Web4orce Ltd and yet it's unpardonable that not one of them noticed Addleshaw Goddard's legal team was guilty of abuse of process and criminal behaviour including tampering with evidence, conspiracy to defraud, forgery and contempt of court.

(1) David Engel, Grade A Partner charged at £785.00 per hour

(2) Gareth Jones, Grade A Partner charged at £580.00 per hour

(3) Neil O'Sullivan, Grade C Senior London Associate charged at £550.00 per hour

(4) Steve Murphy, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £445.00 per hour

(5) Katie Derry, Grade B Managing Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(6) Jayd Haigh, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(7) James Damarell, Grade C Senior Associate charged at £415.00 per hour

(8) Craig Johnson, Grade C Associate charged at £370.00 per hour

(9) There were also 4 Paralegals, charged at £180.00 per hour

 

Addleshaw Goddard Office Markers

To examine the map in fullscreen - click on the white square icon in the top right corner of the map. In the event the red markers in the map are overlapping then click on the plus icon in the bottom right corner of the map until they are separated, click on the same markers to discover Addleshaw Goddard office title, address, phone number, email / url links plus an image.