Oh dear, not good.
After doing my safeguarding course about 2 years ago, from the tone and conversation of the Cranwell staff, I think you could be correct and expect plenty to be forth coming across the country
1 Like
In these you have to feel for the squadrons who are cited, as “mud sticks”, such is the ignorance of the press and locals.
1 Like
It would appear that this case has been resolved and compensation has been paid, the only outstanding part is the issue of costs. I wonder how much compensation was paid out in this case and what the eventual costs will be?
1 Like
What for?
That has not been released.
Yes.
But what was the case for!
Due to the anonymity order, i doubt we will get any such details.
1 Like
The case papers maybe released at a later date.
The order usually only covers the names of the parties. The full case wouldn’t be anonymised, otherwise we would never have heard of it.
According to my friendly Court specialist contact, some case papers have significant elements red-acted, not just the parties.
How much is this going to cost and more importantly who is paying?
Generally anything which could identify the anonymous party.
I very rarely see redactions in documents in cases. And usually that’s personal details from documents disclosed from other sources. Like police docs. Did they mean this case in particular?
Us …. the taxpayer.
If there is a fine placed on HQAC the only money they get is from the taxpayer, if HQAC has to pay costs it will come from the taxpayer. I can’t imagine those bringing the case will be able to afford it, so they’ll either get money for it, or have to bankrupt themselves. The only people who “win” in these things are legal firms, as they know they’ll get their 30 pieces of silver, either way.
It won’t be a fine. They will have agreed to pay damages (with or without an admission of liability) and as the child is a minor the court will have approved the settlement as being fair to the child. (Though you’re right that it will be the taxpayer paying it).
Part of the settlement will be an agreement to pay reasonable legal fees as we (generally) operate on a loser pays system here. In personal injury cases the lawyers don’t always get paid if operating on a no win no fee, or other contingency fee basis. I’d also take issue with the 30 pieces of silver comment, on what basis are the lawyers committing a betrayal here?
Fine / damages is semantics, and unless I’ve missed something HQAC’s only “income” is the taxpayers money allotted by the MoD or if it comes directly from the MoD, it’s still taxpayers money. So it’s the taxpayer paying for this. If this was in a ‘private’ capacity, the individuals charged would be paying it.
It’s really not ‘semantics’ (and using the semantics argument is itself a stupid argument designed to divert attention away from a valid point.)
A fine is a penalty issued by a criminal court for a breach of a criminal offence.
Damages are financial recompense paid by a party at civil fault to someone they hurt.
4 Likes
It is semantics as the money be it for damages or a fine will not come from anywhere other than the taxpayer, which is the point raised
Which if the ATC is found against, will in some part no matter how small affect cadet activities. When we’re told they haven’t got money for say PTS badges or staff rank slides, yet someone, somewhere would find the money to cover this sort of thing, is outrageous.
I asked this question when speaking to a councillor once, when one of the depts. got done for not providing the service they should. It wasn’t coming out of the pockets of the manager(s), so the whole council was being impinged upon to pay this money.
I don’t think you understand how courts work.
1 Like