F-B-F.org -

But he said it was important for the courts to be “non-judgmental”.The Law Commission saidthere was a danger the flawed reasoning applying to the doctrine “crime must not pay” might be used by judges to reject genuine claims by criminals.The commissioners quote Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and David Pannick QC in their book, Human Rights Law and Practice, to support their argument that the arbitrary way in which the law is applied may be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.During discussions with interested parties, the commissioners were told there might be a case for abolishing the “illegality defence” altogether, so a criminal would never be barred from claiming damages simply because he had committed a crime.The Law Commission does not accept this view but asks for more detailed responses on this and all its findings before September 28.. Max Clifford, Britain’s best- known publicist, emerged yesterday from his High Court battle against Mandy Allwood – who miscarried octuplets in 1996 – with his reputation intact. Max Clifford, Britain’s best- known publicist, emerged yesterday from his High Court battle against Mandy Allwood – who miscarried octuplets in 1996 – with his reputation intact.
Although Mr Clifford was ordered to pay his former client £15,200, the judge rejected her claim that he made a “secret profit” out of her story.Ms Allwood, 35, had claimed £16,200, the bulk of which related to a £15,000 payment to Mr Clifford’s company, Max Clifford Associates (MCA), from the News of the World. Mr Justice Park ruled that her claim succeeded to a total amount of £15,200. But Ms Allwood is unlikely to benefit financially from the ruling.

The judge upheld a £4,970 counterclaim by Mr Clifford over unpaid commissions, and ordered each side to pay their own costs of the action.Speaking after the case, Ms Allwood said she brought the legal action in memory of her eight dead babies. Accompanied by her partner, Paul Hudson, she said: “I have been caused considerable anguish by Mr Clifford’s behaviour to me I did this for our babies As far as the costs are concerned, money is not everything. Right is right and wrong is no man’s right.”In his judgment Mr Justice Park said: “In the evidence and the argument Mr Clifford was accused of all sorts of misconduct and impropriety in connection with the £15,000 – secretly taking money on the side and the like. I do not agree with these attacks on Mr Clifford’s honestly and reputation. However, I do think that, for reasons of a more technical nature …

and which do not impact adversely on Mr Clifford’s standing in his business, MCA is liable to account to Ms Allwood for the £15,000.”The judge said that when Ms Allwood was pregnant with octuplets in 1996, “it was potentially a big news story”. He went on: “Mr Clifford, through his company MCA, was engaged to act as her publicity agent and adviser. The two of them have since fallen out and this case is one consequence of the falling out. Originally large sums were claimed by Ms Allwood, but by now, although there is a lot of ill-feeling behind the case, the actual sums are quite small.”Mr Clifford’s evidence, the judge said, was that over the five months or so he acted for Ms Allwood his contracts earned for her £190,000 after all commissions. “I do not suppose for a moment that, without Mr Clifford, Ms Allwood and Mr Hudson would have earned anything like that figure,” the judge said.Commenting on the case, Ms Allwood said Mr Justice Park had recognised the “animosity” between Mr Clifford and herself. She added: “His animosity is surprising, bearing in mind the large sums of money he earned from me.

I can only conclude that his animosity is due to the fact I stood up to him and brought him to court.”Mr Clifford said in a statement: “I just find it incredible that the judge could reach this outcome [on the £15,200] when by his own admission Mandy Allwood and Paul Hudson are prone to making wrongful assertions and are so obviously unreliable.”It defies belief then that he could accept their version of events on this point when not only had I explained this to Paul and Mandy but I was also publicly defending the interests of the News of the World across the entire media.”Mr Clifford’s case in the action was that he had fully informed the couple of his fee from the News of the World for public relations services. Mandy Allwood and her partner said that they were never told.. Jeffrey Archer was accused yesterday of donating only a fraction of a £500,000 libel win to charity, despite his claim that he had given it all away. Jeffrey Archer was accused yesterday of donating only a fraction of a £500,000 libel win to charity, despite his claim that he had given it all away.
A document written by his wife, Mary Archer, showed that only £130,000 was paid to a number of different charities, a jury at the Old Bailey was told.After he was forced to resign as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare issued a statement referring to his successful defamation case in 1987 over claims he had sex with a prostitute, Monica Coghlan. “This accusation was false and in the libel action which followed I was fully vindicated and awarded £500,000, which I donated to charity,” it said.The jury was told yesterday that it had become accepted that the Tory peer had not kept any of the money in damages from the Daily Star newspaper for himself.

But Roy Amlot QC, representing Lord Archer’s co-defendant, Ted Francis, produced a piece of paper, in Lady Archer’s writing, giving the figure of £130,000 and listing the charities it went to.The questions over what happened to the libel winnings came when Mr Amlot was cross-examining Barry Carmel, Lord Archer’s accountant, who advised on tax deductions for the charitable donations he had made.Mr Amlot said: “Do you know, it has always been suggested that the full amount was given to charity?” Mr Carmel said as far as he was aware, a “very high amount” would have been paid to charity But he could not recall any of the sums involved. He was then asked to examine all the documents and accounts in his firm’s possession to ascertain exactly how much the millionaire author did give to charity. A colleague of the accountant is due to return to the court with the paperwork today.Lady Archer made her fourth cameo appearance at her husband’s trial. Their two sons, William and James, both sat through the day’s evidence.Lord Archer, 61, denies two charges of perjury, three charges of perverting the course of justice and one of using a false instrument, a desk diary.