Aspals Legal Pages

In association with
In Association With Amazon Books

Sounding Board 2002, Page 1

Link to Page 2
Please also check the Aspals Archive for older contributions

Post a comment

Please Note, owing to abuse of the system, Aspals will not accept any contribution for posting unless the posting form is used. Sorry!
20 Apr:   the CM system is indeed running in all locations, a number of challenges have been brought. there is one challenge which has been indicated will go to judicial review, the remainder have merely made the points in case the case is lost and goes to appeal. the main thrust of the challenges brought have been on the review point (albeit taking every point in case of appeal).
although review is a post trial matter, and the trial itself is probably HR-compliant, the ability to review was the fail point in Morris. it is important to remember that a DCM is a creature of statute, and parliament has laid down the rules for it, the judges therefore seem to be saying that the statute is being complied with [ - NB this is a huge oversimplification to forshorten many pages of written judgement]. only at divisional court level can a judge make a declaration of incompatibility, therefore the only place for this is either on a JR or at the CMAC.
the government could make the necessary statutory changes using the urgent review process in the schedule of the HRA. so far they have not. it may be that they are busy with other legislative matters! in any event there are time frames for the non urgent review system which have not yet expired. we shall have to wait and see. there is a CMAC judgement awaited in june (i think) which should address some of the Morris points - i believe it covers review also, so it may create some exitement.
there are technical reasons why the CMAC is preferable to JR for some cases. essentially relating to the clients interests and availability of legal aid. as this is off the main thread and only of concern to practitioners i shall stop here unless there is an interest.  Lewis Cherry (  
18 Apr:   Courts martial are up and running. Challenges have been made to to some courts, but they have been overruled, as the judges have held that changes made to Queen's Rules have met the concerns raised in the Morris case. The review question has been dealt with on the basis that it is a post-trial matter that does not affect the validity of the trial itself. I have heard that there is one ruling that is being challenged (JR?), but I cannot be sure. Maybe others have more detailed info.  Tim Brown     
15 Apr:   Is it correct that the Courts-Martial system is back up and running? If so how? In Morris part of the critisim was that of the reviewing authority a creature of legislation. To change this function would it not require further legislation. If the Courts-Martial is back up and running how have the Army and RAF managed to by pass this requirement.  Andrew Goldsborough (  
10 Apr:   Court martials are running again. The forces have made changes that judges think are okay. Did the Morris case achieve anything? I thought it was all over.  Alan    
3 Apr:   I'm with Jamie in this discussion. The court-martial system isnt perfect but then again, what system is? The Europeans want to turn our army into a bucnh of wet civilian types who are like them. None of them has an army to match the British Army. Proper, effective, rapid discipline administered fairly is what we have in our system. We take it with us wherever we go in the world and soldiers always know where the legal line is according to military law. Let's hope that this relentless europeanisation of our laws and processes does not totally wreck the one institution that saved Europe from tyranny within living memory of some of us.  Peter Sullivan    
25 Mar:   Gordon, I don't know about the UK army I'm just disappointed by the gloating over the decision. If court marshall dont try soldiers abroad, who will, foreign courts. Imagine being tried in Kosovo and convicted and being put in jail there. Would the squady understand the case against him? He wouldn't like conditions there thats for sure. I'm not sure Morris did secure a good result for himself. He never got no compensation did he? The money the court said had to be paid was EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) in respect of the costs and expenses of the proceedings inclusive of VAT and the "finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in itself constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant". Just to correct you. I never said the court marshall could never operate to the disadvantage of the soldier. I was talking about review. Can't say that Morris has done anyone a favour here. Lastly I think there is a difference between "objective requirements" and actual unfairness. Findlay never said the system was actually unfair just it looks it but not that it was. Cheers.  Jamie , identity supplied  
23 Mar:   Jamie, It's difficult for me to believe that the UK army would not be concerned about the Morris decision, even if it isn't "doom and gloom" or impressive reading. And, as for what the applicant was trying to achieve, I would say that he achieved it. Litigants are not usually out to "change the system" only to secure a good result for themselves. In the Morris case, I think the accused got what he was looking for. The army has to deal with the fallout. But, that is the nature of constitutional cases. The applicant goes in fighting for his or her rights and, if successful, winds up vindicating everyone else's. Finally, your comment that the court-martial could "never" operate to the disadvantage of a soldier is an interesting one given that the Canadian CMAC in R v. Ingebrigston, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Genereux and the ECHR in Findlay and Morris (to name only a few cases) have all said that the court-martial system at the time the cases were considered were "architecturally" unsound because they lacked the objective requirements independence and impartiality. Any tribunal that lacks such requirements is by nature unfair to the accused isn't it?  Gordon Hook    
22 Mar:   re Gordon's comment to my post. I've re-read the case but still can't see all the the doom and gloom. Actually it's the opposite from the armys point of view. Further challenges will now be very difficult. The judgment itself doesnt make impressive reading, the court seemed to be confused about how the system operates and it has reintroduced permanent presidents with a bang and given its blessing to permanent members. Is that what the applicant wanted to achieve? Review has gone, but no one is likely to lose any sleep over that, apart from soldiers. As for all convictions falling prey to the court, I can't see even the ECHR overturning court marshall convictions just because of a procedure which could never operate to the disadvantage of a soldier and normally operated to his benefit by reducing his sentence. I thought that complaint was a technical point which scored an own goal not only for Morris but for every soldier who is convicted and who has to now appeal to the appeal court, where he is unlikely to have such a sympathetic hearing as the reviewer would have given. I bet tehre are a lot of defence lawyers and defendants who will be quite sad that review has gone. The other complaints he made were effectively dismissed by the court. Just a pity we have'nt had a view from the MOD to say what they think.   Jamie, identity supplied    
19 Mar:   re andrew's query. there is no difficulty with appearing at a summary hearing. it has been accepted since oct 2000 that summary dealing is not compliant, that is why the option to elect is now at the start of the hearing. the position is the same today, except that there are no compliant courts to hear the the summary appeal or the DCM, and if a soldier elects the same applies. only the preparatory hearings/ pre trial hearings are going ahead, since they do not require board members.
the problem for the military is that the delay part of Art 6(1) is running, and all the cases are backing up. at some stage the APA will have to take a view on some of the cases in the pile. it is not sufficient to say that the courts were not compliant from the date of the morris judgement, they have not been compliant from prior to the findlay judgement.
the fun must surely be where in summary dealing the soldier exercises the detention option, and is kept waiting for months waiting for a compliant court to sit? most practitioners can probably see the problems materialising on a daily basis!  lewis cherry, solicitor 
19 Mar:   Jamie, Re read the judgment. The European court held the objective structure violated Art 6(1) i.e., unlawful. You use the word "illegal" which conjures up images of criminality. The ratio is not based upon the seniority of members but a structural analysis of the system which included a review of the:
- appointments process, and
- absence of prophylactic measures against outside pressure.
While the European court seemed to approve the office of permanent president (an officer which does not exist in New Zealand) I would hazard a guess that "packing up the ranks" of permanent members to fill the void in ad hoc members created by Morris would attract scrutiny from the ECHR to insure that those members are not just "permanent " in name only but are accompanied by adequate objective safeguards to protect the integrity of the tribunal. Bottom line is that a limited form of random "jury selection" outside the chain of command is inevitable (in my view). Not a bad thing in my view.   Gordon Hook 
19 Mar:   With the suspension of all Courts-Martials and Summary Appeal Courts following the decision in Morris v UK, what is the position of Summary hearings before a CO? If a person is to be found guilty and sentenced where does he appeal to? Would appreciate any thoughts.  Andrew Goldsborough    
19 Mar:   the military system seems inherently reluctant to radically reform because there ultimately come financial pressures, everybody looks to the budget. the judgement seems to indicate that a board effectively composed of 3 x ppcm's and a ja will meet the criteria (close to an english magistrates court). there are one or two other factors which need to be built in to make it fairly "judge proof",eg removing the review system presumably so you appeal direct to the Court of Appeal (just like the civilian system). unfortunately the beancounters will probably force extra limitations that will leave it exposed to future challenge.
the main problem is that there has not been a compliant court for a long time. when Findlay came to the ECHR in 1997, the MOD case was that they had accepted the need for change and had just implemented new reforms, so please dont kick us too hard! the Morris case is the first of the "new" system cases to reach the ECHR. it effectively says the system in operation since 1996 fails the test too.
i found the judgement interesting in that they seemed to say what they would find satisfactory if the system was changed. that is most unusual for a judgement, usually they only comment on the case in front of them. perhaps they are fed up and are trying to head off the next set of cases?
the judgement means that every case on its way to ECHR under the present system will succeed, but how long will the military be allowed to keep running non compliant courts? the nearer it is to the uk cililian court system the less likely it is to be successfully challenged. this must mean that officers serving in units are not going to get DCM experience, other than officers under instruction. it now will be a job for the mature officer on last posting.   Lewis Cherry, solicitor 
17 Mar:   Have I missed soemthing? The claims of doom to the court marshall system in the case of Morris dont seem justified. I read the judgment and, from what I understood, there are really two issues, review of decisions and membership of courts. I can understand why the court was worried about review, but the part of the judgment dealing with membership of the court marshall was a bit jumbled. They didnt seem to understand the system, but they did not say that trial by court marshall was illegal. It is all down to how senior and experienced the members are. If the court is made up of permanent members with a civilian judge that would be ok.   Jamie    
11 Mar:   ref reply of 27 Feb 02/ Andrew Goldsborough Thanks for your reply, sorry I have not responded sooner but just getting over a case of flue! It would be great if you would give me some pointers, how do i get in contact with you?  Neil Hague    
9 Mar:   Re: Charles' posting about the sale of house. This sounds like a technical minefield. I am not sure if the sale to a company in which you are eg the sole or principal director qualifies as a sale at arms length. Check the regulations, but be very wary of how they will be applied by the Army. The army interprets them in unpredictable (and sometimes inconsistent) ways. You would need to go through them exceptionally carefully and should really discuss what you want to do with your paymaster, who is the expert, and keep a note of the advice given. If you are still not sure whether you have been advised properly, take a copy of the regulations to a solicitor for proper advice.  Pete    
5 Mar:   Re posting from goatboy, your question has largely been answered by the story in today's news that postitive discrimination is still discrimination and, therfore is unconstitutional.   Dave    
4 Mar:   Can a Territorial Army soldier be charged with absence if he has turned up for training, but before signing the attendance register for pay, has decided to leave before any training has taken place? Is the soldier deemed to be on duty before he signs the attendance register?  CHIP  (identity supplied)  
4 Mar:   The Army will pay fees (including legal, estate agent and removals) if I sell my house at my current duty Station and buy another at my new station. I would like to set up my own company, to which I would sell my current house (and so satisfy the Army requirements)and subsequently rent it out, though I would of course technically re-own it through my company. In civil terms, there is no issue in doing this, though is there a military legal aspect? E.g. would I be defrauding the Army of the allowances I would receive for selling as an individual?   Charles (identity supplied)  
1 Mar:   I understand Ken Semple's comments and am sure that they represent a constituency. However, I have to take my hat off to John MacKenzie for shouldering the number of cases he has through to the ECHR and assisting in the development of military justice. MacKenzie didn't decide the cases, he simply advocated a case for his various clients. Pretty basic point but one that often gets lost in the confusion after a significant decision such as Morris. There is never going to be a perfect system of justice but pointing at counsel (who in my view has done a great job for his clients) is pointing in the wrong direction. Keep your eye on the positive aspects that the Morris decision will produce - look at Canada for the example.   Commander Gordon Hook, RNZN  
28 Feb:   Another ˜victory ˜ for John McKenzie and his personal crusade to erode discipline in the Armed Forces and another one in the eye for the many victims. It just galls me that probably no system is 100%, but the rights of victims are not ever considered in such matters. After all, let us not forget that most of the people who are likely to appeal and walk free would have been convicted in any court system. Perhaps we should now trade off: would Tesco have so many people running around after an employee who found himself in trouble? I do not think so. I just wonder where it will all end and wish that people like JM were the ones who had to explain what is happening to the many victims.   Ken Semple  
27 Feb:   To Neil Hague, I recently completed my LL.B and my dissertation was on the ˜Courts-Martial system and the administration of Air Force Law ˜. I may be able to help. Return to this message  Andrew Goldsborough  
23 Feb:   I am a law student at the University of Leicester and am currently considering topics for a forth comming dossertation. Being late of the Royal Military Police, I am hoping to compare the administration systems, sentencing policy, police practice, social aspects of acceptance of legal policy, human rights, between the English and Welsh law and Military law. I would be very grateful if anyone has ny research pointers and information as to the availability of offending statistics in the Armed Forces. Thanks for your time.   Neil Hague  
If you are looking for statistics, you may wish to try contacting the Office for Standards and Casework (Army) and the Army Court Service, both of which are based in Trenchard Lines, Upavon, Wiltshire, SN9 6BE. They can only say "no", but they will probably help you.  Aspals  
21 Feb:   my questions relates to a soldier based in Germany. I found your site via a web search and fond the general background information of the Court Martial procedure very useful. My question now is ... My son, serving with the Royal Engineers in Germany, has just been sentenced to 140 days detention and a discharge. In my opinion this sentence is out of all proportion to the offence committed and we are considering an appeal. Could you tell me :
Do we need grounds for an appeal (new evidence etc) or is an opinion that the sentence was excessive sufficient? Is there a time limit within which the appeal must be lodged? If the worst somes to the worst and he has to serve the sentence, does the discharge take effect at the end of the sentence or at some point during it, the remainder of the sentence being served in a civilian prison?   Bacca (identity withheld)
A-1. If you are appealing against conviction, you must have grounds for saying that the conviction is unsafe. If you are appealing against sentence only, this would be on the basis that it is excessive/inappropriate.
A-2. Yes. The time limit is 28 days (The Courts-Martial Appeal Rules 1968 as amended by the Courts-Martial Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1997). The petition must be lodged with the Defence Council.
A-3. As per footnote 7 to section 71 of the Army Act 1955: Where an officer is sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's service, it is not the sentence of dismissal which deprives him of his commission but the subsequent action by the Sovereign as notified in the Gazette. Where a soldier is sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's service, the sentence does not by itself effect the discharge of the accused: the discharge is not complete until it has been authorised and carried out by the competent military authority in accordance with Q.R.: see, in particular, Q.R. (1975) 9.396 and 9.330.
Your son should have received a copy of the pamphlet 'Appeals and Petitions' (Army Code No 11921), which will explain what he needs to do.   Voitho  
21 Feb:   Re posting by R, sounds tough! But ROS is ROS. You agreed the terms when you signed. If you feel hard done by, bung in a redress.   Jerry  
20 Feb:   RETURN OF SERVICE - I find myself in the ROS trap. I completed a technical course in the Army and signed a ROS for 4 years. I applied to PVR before the ROS was up and was turned down. Although I understand the ROS ethos, subsequent courses have had their ROS reduced to 2 years. The Army Board told me when they rejected my PVR that I was needed in my trade. I have now been posted outside my trade to serve out my ROS. Is it only me that thinks this is a bit off?.   R (identity withheld)  
7 Feb:   LtCol McSally has won an apparent victory over the policy of U.S. servicewomen having to don Muslim abayas. Though the case has not, as yet, even been heard, the Dept. of Defense has offered some leeway on the issue.
I've long thought it a case of disparity of treatment that female and male members have differing standards of grooming (i.e.- length of hair and wearing of earrings) and, it seems, even when a female member is in violation of said double-standard, it behooves a male to caution if intending to counsel her on it.
The double-standard is so prevalent that young servicewomen will blatantly defy the uniform standards by piling their hair so high upon their heads that they must, needs be, wear a ridiculously larger hat to fit. In the meanwhile, male servicemembers have been banned from wearing earrings, on posts, even when off-duty and out of uniform.
The stated reasons for men, historically, to wear short hair have been: uniformity, hygiene and safety. Are female members exempt from these issues?
I think not.
If not, then, is it not disparity of treatment for male members to restricted from the same privileges or freedoms of choice enjoyed by female members? Or, conversely, shouldn't female members be held to the same standards as men?
I'd very like to hear opinions on the premise I've given and whether, or not, anybody thinks that any possible suit to rectify the situation would be given any merit. Thank you, very much.   goatboy
7 Feb:   Once a request has been made to a CO for a copy of the tape recorded interview in accordance with SPCP's, what is the normal period of time before tpaes are delivered? Is a month unusual.   Andrew Goldsborough  
5 Feb:   Re posting by phoenix, these questions are difficult to answer over the internet because someone needs to sit down with you and physically scrutinise the regulations and the specific provisions that they say apply to you. As you are submitting a representation you've probably sought some expert help already but if you haven't perhaps you should. As for your chances of success with your representation, I shouldn't hold your breath. You'll have probably served your engagement before you get a response.   Jerry  
4 Feb:   Re the 1 Feb:   Concerning the UN problem. This is quite complex and shows how vulnerable our boys are when they serve as part of the UN. The US are very wary in this respect and many will recall the Michael New case.
I am very rusty on procedures with the UN, so it may be that someone with more recent experience of UN/NATO ops would be better informed. But the position of UN and those who serve with it is normally covered in a mixture of documents such as the Participation Agreement, the Status of Experts on UN Missions (Convention, I think), the Status of Forces Agreement (the Model Agreement is applied in any case where there is no actual SOFA in place, and this is usually provided for in a Letter of agreement with the Host Nation, pending a formal SOFA). Liability of UN "experts" is usually limited to such time as they are actually carrying out their duties or travelling to and from such duties. However, the fact that the policeman in your case was in a UN official car (which had no number plates, as it was exempt from registration) makes me think that the vehicle was being used with the consent of the UN administration and, as such, it was liable for accidents occasioned by those driving its vehicles. You need to formally establish the absence of registration number of the vehicle, actual ownership of the vehicle and that it was being driven with the express or implied consent of the UN (that should not be difficult, if you have the accident police reports). You will, however, find that dealing with the UN is like swimming in treacle. There is usually an exemption from liability between participating states, which is why I said that it is not good news for our boys if they are injured by the negligence of members of other participating states. The SOFA does contain provisions for the claiming of compensation, but this has to be by the participating state eg UK. See the UK case of Walker. Good luck.   Mil Help
1 Feb:   Morris “v“ the United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights' judgement in this case is to be published on the internet on 26th February 2002. The proceedings arise from the District Court Martial of Trooper Dean Morris of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment in May 1997. It seems inevitable that the ruling will be against the United Kingdom. The primary ground is likely be that the existence of an administrative review in the court martial system prevents courts martial from being tribunals established by law as required by Article 6(1) of the Convention. Other topics that the judgement may cover are: the use of permanent presidents, army legal aid and the representation of the defendant by a military officer. If the primary ground is the administrative review the consequence will be that courts martial will have to stop immediately. The review is a statutory requirement and could only be remedied by primary legislation. Other failings may be susceptible to running repair. However the signs are that government has lost patience with the Ministry of Defence and that a decision has been made that if the ruling in Morris is adverse the court martial system goes. The lawyer for Morris, John Mackenzie, was the lawyer for Findlay in 1997. He is confident that he can repeat the process every five years until he is given some comfortable sinecure or the system goes.   John McKenzie   
1 Feb:   I am a Royal Naval Officer who wishes to voluntarily withdraw from training. I have not yet completed my initial training as defined in Officers' Training Regulations. However, I have passed the point after which the Navy no longer allows voluntary withdrawals from training. The regulations stipulate that an officer in my position must give a fair return of service for the training he has received. The reader is invited to refer to a table of minimum returns of service. The table specified details returns of service for completion of initial training. Completion of initial training is defined to be point that I have not yet reached in my career. There is no further information that specifies a return of service for an officer in my position. My recent application to withdraw from training has been rejected by the Royal Navy. I am therefore submitting a representation against this decision on the grounds that the Royal Navy cannot hold me to a return of service that is not specified for an officer at my stage of training. Do I have a case?   Phoenix   
1 Feb:   the custody regs are all in the Manual of Military Law which is available from HMSO/ The Stationary office price £33. the recent amendment (no21) divides the manual into 2 parts, and in part b are all the rules and regulations.
i know you can download it from the internet also, but the hmso version is more easily handled for practitioners.
copies of what/why client is held is provided for at rule 20. he must be provided with AFA 6212 if in precharge custody. i have found some units are not very good at this procedure and you need to watch them carefully.
give me a call if you need some more help.   Lewis Cherry
29 Jan:   Where can I get a copy of the pre-charge custody and summary dealing regulations. Are there any regulations/codes of practise covering detention registers/custody record. If not under what authority can I obtain a copy of a clients custody proforma's.   Andrew Goldsborough   
Take a look at the Index page, from where you will find a link to the Custody & Sumary Dealing (Army) Regulations. As for the rest of your query, perhaps someone can assist. Is there a military policeman out there?   Aspals   
24 Jan:    A general enquiry, and we would appreciate your help. It concerns a potential personal injury claim against the United Nations. We have received instructions to act on behalf of a client, who is a sergeant in the UK, and who was severely injured in a road traffic accident involving a UNMIK Police Officer, who was working as a police officer for the United Nations from the Gjilian Police Station, in Kosovo.
We understand that on the day in question, the 5th November 2000, at 13:15h, our client was a front seat passenger in a Land Rover, driven by another soldier, a lance corporal.
The vehicle was being driven along the Gjilian Ferozajh highway in Pozarante, Kosovo, when the Turkish police officer, suddenly and without warning, pulled out his motor vehicle (a blue Opel Kadet, no registration number, identification nº WOL000049K2582033), directly into the path of our client's motor vehicle. We understand, at the time, that the Turkish police officer was, in fact, driving on the opposite side of the road and appeared to pull out without warning, providing the lance corporal with no opportunity to avoid a collision.
When the vehicles collided, the Land Rover tippled over and our client sustained a multiple fracture to his right arm and a broken left wrist. Our client has had to have 3 plates put into his right arm: 1 in the lunar, 1 in the radius, and 1 in the humerus. We understand that our client is likely to have some continuing disability in this arm, which will be permanent.
From the information provided to us, we are satisfied that the accident was entirely the responsibility of the UN employee (the Turkish police officer) and that the UN is therefore vicariously liable for this accident.
After many attempts to contact the UN in New York, Geneva and Kosovo, the UNMIK wrote us a letter dated 30 November 2001, stating that the Turkish police officer was driving a personal car at the time of the accident, and that the accident was his personal matter and his own responsibility. Further on, UNMIK personnel driving private vehicles were not covered by the UNMIK vehicle insurance policy.
The UN has also informed us that the Turkish police officer is due to end his tour of duty in the UNMIK area (Kosovo) on 17 May 2002.
However, our client has informed us that, since the Turkish police officer's vehicle bears no vehicle registration number, but holds an identification nº WOL000049K2582033, it is likely that such vehicle is a UN vehicle. Initially, UN official vehicles are of white colour. However, UN vehicles supplied to families of personnel abroad are of blue colour.
In addition, both police reports (from the UNMIK and from the Royal Military Police in Kosovo) mentioned the Turkish police officer being "off-duty" at the time of the collision. However, we strongly believe that, if the Turkish police officer was on a mission for the UN in Kosovo, such UN personnel are always "on duty" or on "stand by" mode.
We would like to receive your opinion, after doing the initial research into the UN liability, and into the process of brining a claim against the UN in New York. We would also like to hear from you about the limitation period in New York, and the points on jurisdiction and the rule of law to be applied against the UN.
The following are of helpful nature:
1. We believe that the Turkish police officer is domiciled in Ankara, Turkey, as his driving licence was issued in Ankara. The Turkish police officer arrived in Kosovo on 06 April 2000 for the first time. He went back to Turkey for a compulsory 1-month military service (23/07/2000 to 15/08/2000). The Turkish police officer is currently residing in Kosovo, but he will be going back to Turkey on 17 May 2002, as per the UNMIK letter dated 30 November 2001;
2. On 16 June 2001, we had the first contact with our client;
3. Our client was in a mission for the British Army in Kosovo, but his domicile has always been in England;
4. Photocopies of photographs of the aftermath of the accident, possibly taken by the Royal Military Police were supplied. We do not hold the original photographs;
5. We have one accident report commissioned by the Royal Military Police and one by the UNMIK Traffic Police, both from Kosovo. Both reports state that the Turkish police officer was off-duty, even though he was in a mission for the UN;
6. We understand that our client has a personal accident policy, which relates to his medical treatment only;
7. Since his accident, our client has tried different possibilities (i.e. contacting the UN directly, contacting the UN via the Royal British Legion, contacting the UN via the UK Ministry of Defence). We tried several times to contact the UN via letters, faxes, telephone calls etc, but at no avail. We addressed to the UN in New York, Geneva, and Kosovo. Only recently, the UN in Kosovo has decided to reply to us (letter dated 30 November 2001), but shifting liability to the Turkish Police Officer. However, communications coming from Kosovo take too long to arrive in England.
We would appreciate your initial help.
We kindly await your response.
If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact either
Mr Alexandre Siciliano or Mr Matthew Clayton (Partner in charge) on tel. 00 44 870 998 9000 or 00 44 161 832 6131. Fax 00 44 870 998 9100 or 00 44 161 832 8172.
Are there any Op Lawyers who can help here. This is a very important issue with the likely growth in PSO-type operations. Please either contact the inquirer direct or post your response here. Please help.   Aspals   
12 Jan:   Re the dentist. I think you'll find it difficult to get out of your obligation. Have a look at the other comments on the site. If your lawyer can't find a way out for you, can't see what else is left - redress?   Gary   
Not found what you were looking for? Perhaps it has been archived. For earlier entries see our Archive .

These pages are under regular review, with new links being frequently added. Please let us know if any really do not work. Sometimes you may need to persevere, depending upon the quality and speed of the connection.
© Aspals, 1997-

Archive  | Cases   | Contact   | FAQ   | Home   | Index of Links  | News Military | News Stories | Next Assignment | Reading List | Search  | Site Map | Sounding Board |

Back to Top