Serving the community for over 90 years...
Friday, 15 September 2017
Friday, 23 September 2016
Murder Convictions of Jamie Dunn and Gary Higgins Quashed
On 23rd September 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down its reserved judgment and formally quashed the convictions of Jamie Dunn and Gary Higgins. No retrial was ordered and Jamie and Gary were, finally, released.
They were convicted of murder at Birmingham Crown Court following a trial in 2006.
Jamie's case was referred back to the Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, read more here.
Maslen Merchant has represented Jamie for over ten years, dealing with his first appeal in 2009 and the subsequent CCRC referral. He also represented Gary in this appeal and Conrad Jones whose linked conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice was quashed in 2014
Maslen instructed Joel Bennathan QC of Doughty Street Chambers and Danielle Cooper.
Click here to read the judgment.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale telephone 0121 449 5050 or
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Justice for Danny Major, Finally?
On 11th December 2015, the long awaited report of the Greater Manchester Police review of Danny's case was delivered to the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Mark Burns-Williamson.
In a statement, Mr Burns-Williamson said the following:
"What the report does say is that, in the opinion of the investigating team, the evidence supports the premise that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and that there is sufficient 'fresh evidence' to support the case being referred back to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC)."
To read the full statement, click HERE
On 21st December, Danny's case featured on Channel 4 News, to view the video, click HERE
Danny is represented by Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale, who has been working on the case for 8 years.
A request for an urgent review, and referral of Danny's case back to the Court of Appeal, was submitted to the CCRC on 14th December. A substantive response is awaited.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050
No further press statements will be issued at this time.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Murder Conviction of Mark Dorling referred to Court of Appeal
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the murder conviction of Mark Dorling to the Court of Appeal.
"Mr Dorling was tried at the Central Criminal Court in London in 2006 for the murder of Aaron Chapman. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted on 19th April and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 25 years.
Aaron Chapman, a former prison officer, was attacked with a knife at his Surrey home in December 2002. The following day he died from multiple stab wounds.
Mr Dorling sought to appeal against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed. He applied to the Commission for a review of his conviction in March 2012.
Having considered the case in detail, the Commission has decided to refer Mr Dorling’s murder conviction to the Court of Appeal. The referral is based new information that has emerged since the trial, and on other evidence that was available at the time of the trial but that was not disclosed to the defence. The Commission considers that this material raises a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the conviction.
Mr Dorling is represented by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale, 83 Alcester Road, Birmingham B13 8EB."
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 0121 232 0906 or e-mail.
30th October 2015
Murder Conviction of Jamie Dunn referred to Court of Appeal
The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the murder conviction
of James Lee Dunn to the Court of Appeal.
"Mr Dunn appeared at Birmingham Crown Court in July 2006 along with four other men charged with murder on the basis of joint enterprise.
He pleaded not guilty but was convicted for the murdering a man who was who was shot multiple times and with two guns in a pub car park in Coventry in April 2005. Mr Dunn was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 26 years.
Mr Dunn appealed against his conviction but the appeal was dismissed in June 2009. He applied to the Commission for a review of his case in September 2013.
Having considered the case in detail, the Commission has decided to refer Mr Dunn’s conviction to the Court of Appeal. The referral is based on previously undisclosed material relating to the reliability of a prosecution witness which raises the real possibility that the Court of Appeal will now quash the conviction.
Mr Dunn is represented by Mr Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale, 83 Alcester Road, Birmingham B13 8EB."
26th October 2015
This press release was issued by Justin Hawkins, Head of Communication, Criminal Cases Review Commission, on 0121 232 0906 or e-mail
Friday, 16 October 2015
The Importance of Full and Frank Disclosure in Divorce Settlements
The Supreme Court has handed down
judgments in the cases of Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60 and Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61.
The rulings highlight the
importance of spouses providing full and frank financial disclosure to ensure a
fair financial settlement. It sends out
a firm message to everyone going through divorce that they cannot mislead or
lie in the family courts and expect to get away with it. Dishonesty or fraud
involving failure to disclose financial assets are grounds for renegotiating previously
resolved disagreements. The rulings are
likely to prompt some aggrieved ex-spouses to reconsider final orders and to
start legal actions.
Both women in the above cases took
their claims to the Supreme Court in London to establish that non-disclosure in
divorce settlements requires a case to be re-examined. Their ex-husbands
disagreed.
To discuss the impact the above
decisions may have upon you if you are already divorced, or in the process of divorce, contact Katie Ward or Hardip Lall-Jones in our Family Department
via enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or 0121 449 5050.
We offer a free, no
obligation, half hour appointment to discuss whatever family issues you have
and also to consider the most appropriate cost package available.
Friday, 11 September 2015
The Case of Heather Ilott - Excluding Family Members from your Will
Many of you have been contacting us with concerns about how
the recent case of Heather Ilott (see post on Blog dated 28th July 2015) affects Wills you have made, or are thinking
of making, in which you exclude a close family member. Particularly in this
case one of your children.
Although English Law carries no specific rules about how
people should dispose of their estates there have long been laws that protected
family members who had been unreasonably disinherited. The most recent of those
is the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
One of the categories of the family that has some protection
is children.
When Heather Ilott’s mother left her nothing and gave her
entire estate to charities the issues in the law were decided by senior judges
in the Court of Appeal.
The decision in favour of Ms Ilott appears to fly in the
face of how most lawyers had been interpreting the law and to make it much
easier for disinherited children to stake claims.
Over the next few years there will, no doubt, be more cases which help
to set the guidelines more clearly but at the moment when we make Wills we must
work with the new situation.
I always ask new clients to tell me about their families and
in particular I am looking to see if any likely claimant under the 1975 Act is
not getting what might be “reasonable provision”.
In such cases I try to find out why the client has made this
decision. There are usually very good reasons. I advise the client about the
potential risk of a claim and sometimes the client makes changes in the Will to
try to avoid future conflict.
A good lawyer will make sure that a proper record is made of
the reasons for the client’s decision.
This could be written in the Will, it could be put into a
signed statement, it could be signed on my notes or it could be recorded in my
letter to the client.
The decision in Ilott means that I will be advising a great
many more statements.
The statement will need to address the issues highlighted in
the Ilott case.
The first is why the person is being left out.
The second is to establish the lifestyle that the affected
person has. The Ilott case was about raising Ms Ilott’s standard of life to
what the judges thought was “reasonable”. How does that point fit into my
client’s circumstances?
The third is to explain why the parties who have taken the
share instead should have it. In the Ilott case the mother who made the Will
had no real connection with the charities she gave the money to. It might have
been a very different outcome if she had been a lifelong supporter of them or
if she had had some substantial support from them, for example from a charity
such as Macmillan.
If I need to attend on the client to prepare and write up
the statement there will have to be a charge which will depend on the time
taken, probably at least £50.
However the client may feel that they can set out all the
facts in a statement themselves in which case there would be no charge for
storing the statement with the Will.
These are early days for the legal profession in reacting to
this case but I hope these few words are of some assistance.
The essential message is the same as in my other piece about
Wills:
Use a solicitor,
preferably one who has been recommended to you.
To contact Roger call our Moseley office on 0121 449 5050
or email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Beware - if your Will is not written well the Courts can overrule it!
In
the recent case of Heather Ilott (v Mitson and others [2015] EWCA Civ 797) the Court of Appeal overruled Melita Jackson’s Will which left her £500,000
estate to animal charities.
The
Court awarded Heather Ilott £164,000 from her estranged mother’s estate despite
the fact that her mother had expressly stated in the Will that she did not want
her daughter to receive anything.
To read the judgment from the case click here
This
ruling means that although people can still disinherit their children, their
Will must show a good reason why and explain what connects them to the people
or organisations that they have included in their wills instead.
Regardless
of what you write in your Will, it can be overturned if it is not written
clearly and in enough detail to satisfy the Courts.
The message is clear - see a Solicitor and
have your Will drawn up professionally to be sure your wishes are carried out.
To discuss making a Will, or any concerns you may have about an existing Will, please contact our Wills and Probate department on 0121 449 5050 or via enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk.
Friday, 13 March 2015
Landmark Ruling on Financial Provision
Landmark
Ruling on Financial Provision
The
recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 highlights
how important it is to obtain a financial Consent Order during divorce, in
order to finalise the proceedings.
The court ruled that
the passage of time (in this case 22 years) did not prevent a claim being
brought by a woman against her ex husband for financial provision.
To discuss any
concerns you may have please contact our family department via enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or by telephone on 0121
449 5050.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
Making a Will
A Personal Note from
Roger Mallatratt
While
my note about LPAs suggested that those who want to take the time and trouble
can make their own I very strongly advise clients that they should have their
Wills prepared professionally.
A
Will is not a form; it is a blank sheet in which you have to set down exactly
what you want to happen to your estate when you die. It only becomes a valid
document on your death at which point there will be nothing you can do to
correct any mistakes.
The
starting point is to assess in broad terms what you own at the moment and how
your estate would be distributed if you died reasonably soon. It is quite easy
to get even that first stage wrong. For example, many people see their jointly
owned house as belonging equally to each party forgetting that the law of
survivorship means that on the first death the entire property passes
automatically to the other.
The
next stage is to start to consider, as far as you can, what you might own if
you die some years in the future. Might you have had an inheritance? Might you
need residential care which could result
in your house having been sold before you die?
Giving
a house to a family member in your Will might go completely wrong for that
person if the house was no longer yours when you died.
Family
life is much more complicated than it was; many people are in second marriages
or partnerships and one or both have children from other relationships. That
usually needs some thinking about.
Who
are you going to appoint as executors? Usually these can be drawn from
immediate family. There is generally no need for the solicitors or a Will
writing company to be executors. Such appointments lead to increased and
unnecessary cost for your estate.
I
do not advise clients to appoint us as executors unless there is some very good
reason for doing so.
We
do not charge a massive fee which allegedly incorporates Probate work. We
charge reasonably for the Will, we do not charge for storing it and we make no
charge for getting it out of storage and handing it to your executors when the
time comes. If your executors want help from our excellent Probate
Department they can have it but there is no obligation or hard sell.
These
are just a few of the areas that I and my colleagues at Hadgkiss will help you to deal with
when we are making your Will. I am delighted to work with such a friendly firm
and hope to be of service to you.
To contact Roger please call our Moseley
office on
0121 449 5050 or email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk
Lasting Powers of Attorney
A personal note from Roger Mallatratt
If you have got this far in your
research you probably have an interest in obtaining a LPA for yourself or for a
relative and will have a pretty good idea of what it means.
You will be aware of what is
almost a barrage of recommendation for LPAs from the Press, Government
and on radio and TV. They really do make sense.
The Office
of the Public Guardian website is excellent. It has all the forms you need
and loads of information. If you want to do so you can prepare and register
them for yourself.
I am one of the lawyers at Hadgkiss
to whom LPA enquiries are directed. I have been writing them since they began
about 7 years ago and I have over 30 years of legal experience behind me.
This is not the place to persuade
you to have an LPA. It is just a few notes looking at some of the points that
arise.
The first thing to say is that it
is not essential to use a solicitor. The LPA and the other papers involved are
all forms. They just have to be completed properly; the rules are on the OPG
website and are the same rules that we use. What a solicitor offers is the
experience to avoid mistakes, guidance on the few questions that the forms
raise and, perhaps of most importance, the saving of the time and
responsibility.
We offer a fixed price which
includes the making of the LPA and all the necessary steps to include
registration.
I always advise clients to have
more than one attorney if possible and if that does not suit then I encourage
them to appoint someone else as a possible replacement.
It is absolutely essential that
you fully trust the people you are appointing. They will be in control of
aspects of your life when you are no longer able to exercise control. If you
are in any doubt about anyone do not appoint them.
Although I am willing to have
intended attorneys present for some of the interview that will only be if the
person making the LPA, who is my client, wants them to be. If I sense any
uncertainty with my client or I learn of any pressure I will advise against the
LPA being made.
Some enquiries come from
relatives who want to be able to stop a family member (usually an older one)
from doing something of which they disapprove. Often that behaviour is spending
the money they hoped to inherit. Such enquiries may be well meant but LPAs
don’t work like that. The maker of the LPA can continue doing whatever they
like unless or until they lose mental capacity. Until then all the LPAs in the
world cannot interfere.
I hope that there has been
something worth reading on this page and that I may be able to help you.
To contact Roger please call our Moseley office on
0121 449 5050 or email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk
Monday, 22 December 2014
CCRC Fast Tracks David Morris Review
Following receipt of further representations submitted on behalf of David, The Criminal Cases Review Commission ("CCRC") has confirmed that it has given "level one" priority status to its review of his convictions for murder.
It is hoped the review will begin in February 2015.
The Mail on Sunday reported this development on 21st December 2014. To read the article click here
An article highlighting David's case, and the submission of the application to the CCRC, was published in the Mail on Sunday on 23rd November 2014. To read the article click here
It is hoped the review will begin in February 2015.
The Mail on Sunday reported this development on 21st December 2014. To read the article click here
An article highlighting David's case, and the submission of the application to the CCRC, was published in the Mail on Sunday on 23rd November 2014. To read the article click here
David is represented by Francis FitzGibbon QC from Doughty Street Chambers, Brian Thornton of the University of Winchester Innocence Project and Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Case of Jasbinder Pal Heer in Observer Newspaper
An article highlighting Jasbinder's case, and the recent submission of grounds of appeal against his convictions, was published in the Observer Newspaper on Sunday 7th December 2014.
Jasbinder was originally prosecuted following a News of the World 'sting' operation in 2007.
To read the article click here
Jasbinder is represented by Patrick O'Connor QC from Doughty Street Chambers and Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050.
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Gordon Park Press Statement
PRESS STATEMENT REGARDING THE CASE OF
GORDON PARK (DECEASED)
As a result of a number of recent press articles regarding the case of Gordon Park, his family feel compelled to respond via this statement.
"The conviction for murder of Gordon Park deceased is currently being investigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The Commission’s investigation, it is hoped, will be thorough and will, inevitably, take some considerable time to complete.
It is understood that the Commission’s investigation is still in its early stages.
The family do not wish to make any further comment, at this stage."
Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale Solicitors
83 Alcester Road
Moseley, Birmingham
B13 8EB
Tel: 0121 449 5050
Email: enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk
Monday, 24 November 2014
Case of David Morris in Mail on Sunday Feature
An article highlighting David's case, and the recent submission of an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, was published in the Mail on Sunday on 23rd November 2014.
To read the article click here
David is represented by Francis FitzGibbon QC from Doughty Street Chambers, Brian Thornton of the University of Winchester Innocence Project and Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050.
Thursday, 9 October 2014
Danny Major - "Justice Denied"
A documentary highlighting Danny's case is now available to view online.
To view the video click here
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050.
Friday, 4 July 2014
Conrad Jones - Conviction Quashed
Appeal Court quashes conviction of man accused
of trying to derail Coventry murder trial
Conrad Jones had always
denied terrifying a female witness in Clinton Bailey trial
Conrad Steven Jones, 48, formerly of Sewall
Highway, Wyken,
was accused of terrifying a female witness as he did all he could to prevent
her giving evidence.
Jailed at Birmingham Crown Court for doing an act intending
to pervert the course of justice in 2007, he served the custodial portion of a
12-year sentence.
But he has always denied any wrongdoing and,
after taking his case to the Court of Appeal
last month, has now had his name cleared by three top judges.
His legal team, headed by senior QC, Joel
Bennathan, said evidence only revealed recently cast serious doubts on the
credibility of the chief prosecution witness.
The prosecution alleged Jones had tried to help
five men beat a murder charge after the shooting of Clinton Bailey at the Three
Horseshoes pub, in Coventry, in April 2005.
The chief witness became the target of a
“professional and organised” attempt to prevent her giving evidence at the
trial, it was alleged.
She was offered money and threatened with serious
violence.
Mr Bennathan said the crucial evidence, which the
prosecution had all along, showed that it was highly improbable that Mr
Jones was in Nottingham when the witness claimed to have met him there.
Had the jury been shown the evidence, they might
have concluded that the meeting had been invented by the witness, he told the
court.
Giving judgment, Lord Justice Pitchford spoke of
a ‘lamentable failure’ by the prosecution to disclose the evidence in 2007.
He continued: “The only occasion when she claimed
to have been threatened face-to-face by the appellant was at a meeting on 1 or
2 June 2006.
“We do not consider that this was a peripheral
issue in the context of the case against this appellant.
“On the contrary, it was central both to the
witness’ credibility on the issue of intimidation by the appellant and to the
particulars of activity by the appellant on which the prosecution relied
against him.
“If the jury had concluded that no such meeting
had taken place, the impact upon her account of several other alleged events
for which she claimed the appellant was responsible must, we conclude, have
been significant.
“It is possible, if not probable, that the other
evidence would have been sufficient to convict the appellant, but we cannot
conclude that would have been the conclusion of the jury.
“We cannot conclude that the issue we have
identified could be segregated from an assessment of her credibility in
general.
“In our judgment, the verdict is unsafe and the
conviction must be quashed.”
The judge, who heard the appeal with Mr Justice
Turner and Mrs Justice Carr, did not order a retrial.
Mr Jones was not present in court.
Conrad was represented by Joel Bennathan QC of Doughty
Street Chambers and Maslen Merchant of Hadgkiss Hughes and
Beale.
To contact the criminal department at Hadgkiss
Hughes and Beale email enquiries@hhb-mo.co.uk or telephone 0121 449 5050.
Case Of Danny Major on Channel 4 News
'Public face of police brutality' fights to clear name
Ciaran JenkinsNorth of England Correspondent
PC Danny Major was convicted of assaulting a teenager in a police cell, imprisoned and sacked. He lost his appeal and criminal case review, but now the case has been reopened.
Bernadette Major looks me straight in the eye and says: "Everybody knows he didn't do it." Tears stream down her face, and her husband, Eric, leans in to console her.
"We're at the point of breaking," says Eric, "as you can see."
In front of us on the kitchen table stands a model depicting the inside of a police station in Leeds, painstakingly recreated by Bernadette. Everything is in black and white, except for a room marked "Cell #9", which has been shaded in blood red.
"This is where they said Danny attacked him," says Bernadette.
PC Danny Major was the arresting officer. He was later convicted of violent assault, sent to prison and sacked. His parents believe he was framed.
Nobody doubts that a young man was assaulted in custody that night. But for 10 years, Bernadette and Eric have argued their son was not responsible. In all that time, this is their first television interview.
"We're at the point of breaking," says Eric, "as you can see."
In front of us on the kitchen table stands a model depicting the inside of a police station in Leeds, painstakingly recreated by Bernadette. Everything is in black and white, except for a room marked "Cell #9", which has been shaded in blood red.
"This is where they said Danny attacked him," says Bernadette.
Bloodied and beaten
Cell number nine at Leeds Bridewell police station is where an 18-year-old man was found bloodied and beaten in custody, one night in September 2003.PC Danny Major was the arresting officer. He was later convicted of violent assault, sent to prison and sacked. His parents believe he was framed.
Nobody doubts that a young man was assaulted in custody that night. But for 10 years, Bernadette and Eric have argued their son was not responsible. In all that time, this is their first television interview.
"The simple truth would have brought West Yorkshire Police and the people wearing the uniform of that police force under very close scrutiny," says Eric, a former officer himself.
An hour later, I'm standing alongside Danny Major outside the police station in Leeds where he worked his last shift on the frontline. He's dressed smartly in suit and tie. Although he now works in a call centre on minimum wage, his words still have the ring of a police officer.
"As well as the spearing, it was alleged I kneed him in the face, punched him several times, then took him in to the Bridewell, took him to a police cell and, while searching him, continued to punch him in the face another five or six times."
For a while Danny was the public face of police brutality. At his trial, the judge was scathing in his criticism - not just of Danny but a custody suite he branded "a shambles".
Danny appealed, and lost. A criminal case review also found against him. And yet he and his family have persevered with their campaign, examining every piece of available evidence.
An hour later, I'm standing alongside Danny Major outside the police station in Leeds where he worked his last shift on the frontline. He's dressed smartly in suit and tie. Although he now works in a call centre on minimum wage, his words still have the ring of a police officer.
'Spearing him to the ground'
"I was accused of taking the person I arrested out of the police van and spearing him to the ground, while he was handcuffed to the rear," says Danny, pointing to the area behind us where police vans park up. "As though I picked him up and threw him into the ground head first from the back of the van.""As well as the spearing, it was alleged I kneed him in the face, punched him several times, then took him in to the Bridewell, took him to a police cell and, while searching him, continued to punch him in the face another five or six times."
For a while Danny was the public face of police brutality. At his trial, the judge was scathing in his criticism - not just of Danny but a custody suite he branded "a shambles".
Danny appealed, and lost. A criminal case review also found against him. And yet he and his family have persevered with their campaign, examining every piece of available evidence.
"Evidence that was requested that would have cleared my name has either disappeared or not been collected, or has been destroyed," says Danny. "With my case, that list of evidence is as long as my arm. Potential video footage, digital evidence that would have cleared my name has disappeared."
Channel 4 News put these allegations to West Yorkshire Police. A statement from the Deputy Chief Constable, Dean Collins, said it would be "inappropriate to comment at this time" as an investigation is ongoing.
The Major family say they're frustrated with West Yorkshire Police's silence. But they cannot hide their delight that 11 years on, the case has been reopened.
The original investigation, conducted by Danny's own force, is now itself the subject of a probe by Greater Manchester Police, at the request of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson.
Greater Manchester Police also refused to comment while their investigation is ongoing. But for once, Danny Major is hopeful.
"I'm sure the first thing that will come out of it will be to clear my name," he says.
If it doesn't, I point out, the record will still show that Danny Major is a violent criminal.
"If people trust the criminal justice system to be one hundred per cent right, then they're very naïve," he says. "The system is designed and run with people involved so there are always going to be mistakes."
The outcome of the latest investigation won't be known for several months. Either it will make difficult reading for Danny Major and his family, or it will invite considerable scrutiny of West Yorkshire Police.
Channel 4 News put these allegations to West Yorkshire Police. A statement from the Deputy Chief Constable, Dean Collins, said it would be "inappropriate to comment at this time" as an investigation is ongoing.
The Major family say they're frustrated with West Yorkshire Police's silence. But they cannot hide their delight that 11 years on, the case has been reopened.
The original investigation, conducted by Danny's own force, is now itself the subject of a probe by Greater Manchester Police, at the request of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Mark Burns-Williamson.
'No need to hide anything'
"This is a force with no need to hide anything. It's not been involved at any stage. It's a neutral referee as it were," says Eric.Greater Manchester Police also refused to comment while their investigation is ongoing. But for once, Danny Major is hopeful.
"I'm sure the first thing that will come out of it will be to clear my name," he says.
If it doesn't, I point out, the record will still show that Danny Major is a violent criminal.
"If people trust the criminal justice system to be one hundred per cent right, then they're very naïve," he says. "The system is designed and run with people involved so there are always going to be mistakes."
The outcome of the latest investigation won't be known for several months. Either it will make difficult reading for Danny Major and his family, or it will invite considerable scrutiny of West Yorkshire Police.
Ciaran Jenkins, UK
Monday, 30 June 2014
Changes to Child Maintenance Regulations
CHANGES
TO CHILD MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS
“New Child Maintenance Regulations come
into force on 30th June 2013, meaning parents making application for
Child Maintenance Service (CMS) will have to pay application fees, ongoing
administration fees to the CMS and Government administration fees on top….
To discuss these recent changes, and the
impact they may have upon you as a parent contact Hardip Lall-Jones on hardiplall-jones@hhb-mo.co.uk or Katie Ward
on katieward@hhb-mo.co.uk or 0121 449
5050.
|
|||||||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)