What is sauce for the goose should of course be sauce for the gander
Posted in General on 15. Oct, 2010
What is sauce for the goose should, of course, be sauce for the gander.Second, for the great majority of people in this country, statements by representatives of the police force carry a badge of authority and weight. Rather as allegations in a serious newspaper of record may be given more credit (and hence, if incorrect, be more damaging) than statements in tabloid newspapers, the presumption by most members of the public is that comments and allegations made by police officers following a detailed and expensive investigation can be believed.Even more seriously, that is the presumption of the law as well. If a newspaper prints something in reliance on information from the police, the paper may well have an extra defence (of qualified privilege) to any libel claim – irrespective of whether the statements turn out to be true or false – because the law regards it as reasonable and responsible for a newspaper to trust what it is told by the police. So, if the information turns out to be incorrect, anyone damaged by what is published may not have an effective remedy against the media. The only redress will come from action against the source – the police themselves.Donal MacIntyre has written extensively elsewhere about the positive effect that he hopes his victory will have on standards of care by highlighting (on behalf of those who themselves have no clear voice) instances where those standards are not met.For my part, I sincerely hope that, in addition, Donal’s success will serve as a cautionary reminder to those in positions of authority, such as the police.
Their very authority brings with it additional responsibility when it comes to making public statements, especially through the media, that go beyond the strict limits of their function to investigate crime, and that may destroy reputations.Nicholas Armstrong is a partner in the media group of Goodman Derrick solicitors. The father of Suzy Lamplugh today spoke of his “anger and frustration” that the man he believes murdered her has not been brought to justice. The white couple who gave birth to black twins after a mix-up at an IVF clinic are to be allowed to keep the children despite continuing uncertainty over their legal status, a judge ruled yesterday. But there was a suggestion yesterday that it may have taken on too much work.The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority imposed conditions on the Leeds clinic’s licence, limiting the number of egg collections and embryo transfers. At a press briefing on the background to the case, Sue Avery, chairwoman-elect of the Association of Clinical Embryologists, said, without naming the Leeds clinic: “If the workload is taken beyond safe limits, that is the point where errors can occur.”Dame Elizabeth, making an interim statement on the case, which first came to light in July, said that no one was suggesting the twins should be uprooted from their “happy and loving” environment with the white couple, Mr and Mrs A, “at any stage”.
In the mix-up, sperm taken from Mr B, who was having fertility treatment with his wife at the Leeds clinic, was used to fertilise Mrs A’s eggs, giving him a claim to be the legal parent of the twins, with Mrs A. The judge said the next stage in the proceedings, early next year, would be to establish the legal parentage of the twins. There were no concerns about the twins’ welfare and there were no family proceedings before the court, suggesting that both sets of parents had accepted the twins should continue living with Mr and Mrs A.The twins are believed to be aged over two. The error came to light only as the parents became aware that the skin tone of their children was different from their own.If the judge decides that Mr B is a legal parent of the twins he could request contact with them.