Tony Blair, Charles Falconer, Jack Straw and David Miliband and a writ named sue

Tony Blair, Charles Falconer, Jack Straw and David Miliband and a writ named sue

18 June 2010

Dear Mr Hirst

RE: CLAIM BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PRISONERS AGAINST LORD FALCONER – ALLEGED MISFEASANCE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE AND NEGLIGENCE

Thank you for your email, dated 3 June 2010 and addressed to Lord Falconer. This has been passed to me for my consideration and I confirm that the Treasury Solicitor has been instructed on behalf of Lord Falconer. You should therefore direct all future correspondence to this address.

In respect of the content of your email, any claim brought on the basis suggested in your email would be misplaced and ill-conceived. Should proceedings be issued in relation to this allegation, I can confirm they will be vigorously defended and an immediate application will be made to have them struck out.


Yours sincerely



Helen Pryde
For the Treasury Solicitor




WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Charles Falconer

Letter before action

Re: Misfeasance in public office and negligence

I have been instructed by Ben Gunn, General Secretary of the Association of Prisoners, to pursue legal action against yourself.

As you are aware, from the Consultation document cp2906 which cited paragraph 82 of Hirst v UK(No2):

"In the light of this paragraph no change would be contrary to the terms of the judgment".

Being aware of this position, it begs the question why you then decided to adopt a policy of no change?

The subtitle of the consultation document reads:



The UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom

To do nothing, no change, hardly constitutes a response. Rather it is a non-response.

In oder to show you the difference between a response and a non-response, the Association of Prisoners has decided to sue you personally at private law for the torts of misfeasance in public office and negligence.

If you would prefer to settle outside of court, feel free to make an offer for a full and final settlement.

Yours sincerely

John Hirst, Legal Adviser to the Association of Prisoners.


Misfeasance in public office

"Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused his power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police Constable who deprived him of his right to vote".