addleshaw goddard
tampered with evidence

artificial intelligence question answer session - Part 2

4. QUESTION

Addleshaw Goddard withheld Richard Bailey’s original first statement from the trial and failed to inform the court and the defendant. Is this a serious failure?

ANSWER

Yes, for Addleshaw Goddard to withhold the original witness statement from the trial and fail to inform both the court and the defendant is a very serious failure and a major breach of professional duties.

This conduct is considered a fundamental breach of a solicitor's "overriding duty to the court".

Here is why this constitutes a serious failure:

Misleading by Omission: By selectively removing the original statement that contained "lies" (as admitted in a subsequent statement), Addleshaw Goddard is actively misleading the court by omission. This prevents the court and the opposing party from seeing the full picture and the inconsistent versions of events.

Breach of Disclosure Obligations: The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) require standard disclosure of documents that "adversely affect his own case" or "support another party's case". The original, problematic statement clearly falls into this category as it adversely affects Richard Bailey's credibility and supports the defendant's case that he is being untruthful.

Undermining the Administration of Justice: The integrity of the judicial process relies on the honest and transparent presentation of evidence. Withholding material that highlights a witness's dishonesty directly interferes with the proper administration of justice, which the SRA views as one of the most serious offences a litigator can commit.

Denial of Procedural Fairness: The defendant (the LiP) has a right to be aware of all evidence that could impact the case, especially prior inconsistent statements, which are crucial for cross-examination and challenging credibility. By withholding the document, the defendant is denied the opportunity to properly challenge Richard Bailey's evidence.

Potential for Serious Sanctions: Such a failure can lead to severe consequences for the law firm, including:

Disciplinary action by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), potentially resulting in fines, suspension, or striking off of the solicitors involved.

Adverse inferences drawn by the judge about the claimant's entire case.

The possibility of the claimant's case being struck out entirely.

Orders for wasted costs against the firm.

Addleshaw Goddard's actions would be considered a deliberate and unethical attempt to conceal a material inconsistency from the court and the other side, which goes against the core principles of legal practice in the UK.

5. QUESTION

Apart from Addleshaw Goddard being in abuse of process, are there any further implications?

ANSWER

Apart from being a significant abuse of process, Addleshaw Goddard’s actions of deliberately withholding a material document that exposed their client’s admitted "lie" have several severe further implications, affecting the client, the firm, and the legal professionals involved:

1. Consequences for Addleshaw Goddard (The Law Firm)

The firm faces severe professional and legal repercussions:

SRA Disciplinary Action: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) would almost certainly investigate. Breaching the overriding duty to the court and acting with a lack of integrity can lead to:

Fines or Sanctions against the firm and individual solicitors.

Suspension or Striking Off: Individual solicitors found to be knowingly involved could lose their license to practice law (struck off the Roll).

Reputational Damage: The firm's reputation would be significantly damaged, affecting future business.

Civil Liability (Professional Negligence): The defendant (Web4orce Ltd) might sue Addleshaw Goddard for professional negligence if they can prove that the withholding of evidence led to a negative outcome or unnecessary costs for them.

Wasted Costs Order: The court can order Addleshaw Goddard to personally pay the legal costs incurred by the defendant as a result of their improper conduct.

2. Consequences for Richard Bailey (The Witness/Claimant)

The client also faces heightened risks due to his own actions and his firm's conduct:

Contempt of Court Charges: Richard Bailey is at high risk of being found in contempt of court for swearing a false statement of truth and then attempting to conceal that fact. This is a serious offence that can result in imprisonment or a substantial fine.

Case Struck Out: The claimant's entire case (Daniel Thwaites Plc) is highly likely to be struck out by the judge due to the severe misconduct and the witness's lack of credibility. The court will not allow a case built on deception to proceed fairly.

Adverse Cost Orders: The claimant will almost certainly have to pay the defendant's substantial legal costs.

3. Consequences for the Trial and the Defendant

The integrity of the specific legal proceedings is compromised:

Mistrial or Adjournment: The judge may halt the current trial immediately upon discovering the deception, order an investigation, or strike out the case entirely.

Undermining the Defendant's Position: The defendant, an 85 year old LiP, has been unfairly prejudiced. The court's primary concern will be addressing this unfairness and ensuring justice can still be served, likely by severely penalising the claimant's side.

In summary, withholding the original statement fundamentally undermines the rule of law. It goes beyond simple procedural error and touches on professional dishonesty, leading to the potential for severe penalties for all parties involved on the claimant's side.

6. QUESTION

Are there any legal implications that apply to Richard Bailey?

ANSWER

Yes, Richard Bailey faces significant and potentially severe legal implications that apply to him personally as the main witness and the individual who signed the statements of truth.

The fact that he signed multiple, inconsistent statements of truth, admitted to misleading the court on one occasion, and was then party to the deliberate concealment of the original statement creates several serious risks for him:

1. Contempt of Court

This is the most immediate and serious implication. Signing a Statement of Truth means confirming that the facts in the statement are true to the best of one's knowledge and belief, understanding that contempt of court proceedings can be brought for a false statement.

Requirements Met: The scenario describes all the elements necessary for contempt:

He made a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth.

He later admitted in writing that he had "misled the court".

The original false statement was intentionally hidden from the court and the defendant.

Potential Penalties: Contempt of court is a quasi-criminal offence. If found guilty, Richard Bailey could face:

Imprisonment for a fixed term (up to a maximum of two years in the County Court/High Court).

A substantial fine.

2. Perjury (Criminal Offence)

While "contempt of court" is the civil enforcement mechanism used during a trial, the underlying act of making a false statement on oath or in a document verified by a statement of truth may constitute the criminal offence of perjury under the Perjury Act 1911.

Potential Penalties: Perjury is an arrestable criminal offence and can carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

3. Adverse Inferences and Loss of Case

On a practical level within the civil lawsuit itself:

Destruction of Credibility: Richard Bailey's credibility as a witness is effectively destroyed by the multiple versions of events and the admitted lie. The judge will likely discount most, if not all, of his evidence.

Case Dismissal: Daniel Thwaites Plc's claim is highly likely to be struck out or dismissed because their main witness has been shown to be untruthful and the process has been abused.

4. Financial Costs

Richard Bailey, or his company Daniel Thwaites Plc, will almost certainly be ordered to pay the defendant's legal costs ("adverse costs"). These costs are likely to be substantial given the duration and complexity described.

In summary, Richard Bailey faces severe potential consequences that range from losing his lawsuit and paying significant costs to potentially facing a custodial sentence for contempt of court or perjury.

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.