WhiteBlue wrote:... There is no report that one of those girls was wounded let alone seriously wounded.
...
to make the case law applicable in the Mosley case one would have to show that the serious harm done to Mosley was comparable to what was punished in the spanner case. If at all successfull it would probably only apply to the mistress who reportedly wounded Mosley.
Good defense, certainly better than the one stated by P.O.L., our "lost member". In any case, you switched "your case" from
consent to
harm, now that consent is clearly not accepted in UK.
Your honor,
I'm not a lawyer, either, but it seems to me you're confusing GBH (grievous bodily harm) with ABH (actual bodily harm). Reading about it I find this:
"It has long been accepted that ABH includes any
hurt or injury that interferes with the health or
comfort of the victim, and which is more than transient or trifling."
Examples of ABH include (in appellation, it's true) cutting a pony tail and minor cuts, like the ones you get from a whip, which from my naive legal point of view causes
hurt and interferes with
comfort.
Also, you do not need to have bad intentions: for example, to show that ABH occurred, “...it is not necessary to show that Parmenter intended bodily harm; if he intended or was reckless as to the assault, and the actual bodily harm was a reasonably foreseeable result (whether or not it was or should have been foreseen by Parmenter himself), that is sufficient.” DPP v Parmenter
It's really hard to argue that it's not a "reasonably foreseeable result" to get minor cuts and bruises from whipping!
Anyway, the hundreds of citizens you foresee suing Mosley (and anybody just wishing some notoriety could try, including his "many political enemies", me included) will not appear,
given the efforts and money Mr. Mosley will probably spend in sueing anybody related to the case and the offended attitude that Mr. Mosley has displayed until now.
I still wonder which will be the line of defense of NOTW, but probably their defense team (or some F1 fan who is a lawyer in UK) could give us a better explanation.
On a different issue, I was able to locate the chapter on FIA statutes about their integrants:
FIA foundation CODE OF CONDUCT OF TRUSTESS:
INTEGRITY
FIA Foundation’s trustees should:
• not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or
organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their roles;
• avoid any appearance of improper behaviour, as well as avoiding actual impropriety;
• avoid accepting gifts and hospitality that might reasonably be thought to influence their judgement.
This is a more moral position on the issue, one used by Mosley himself many times against his opponents. I've even read this somewhat extreme position:
This is a man who presides over an organisation that punishes people for transgressions. It is therefore relevant whether or not he is a sadist, even in his private life.
I won't comment too much on the issue of "plac(ing) themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals"...
An investigation on the financial records of Mr. Mosley could have been a clear thing to do for his heavy "political enemies",
if they really exist. Heck, if I could, I'd do it, but I'm not "heavy".
The rumours are too strong about this, do not forget that the Presidency of FIA is not a paid position.
About NOTW case, it seems they're toasted. Even in the first deposition, the judge implied that breach of privacy has occurred.
Against the importance of privacy, there is the issue of a right that is just as important and that is the right to freedom of speech and a free press. The two sides of this coin have to work together with responsibility. Under American law, not aplicable, true, Mosley's rights to privacy are severely curtailed in his position as public persona.
When Max Mosley decided to take libel action against the Sunday Times
and, moreover, it's columnist Martin Brundle over an article he wrote pointing to double standards within FIA he resorted to bullying. This is the same Max Mosley that reportedly told ITV that Brundle was not good enough to be a commentator on their F1 broadcasts.
When somebody takes legal action against a newspaper for an article that does not paint him in a nice light then we have trouble. A free press is the cornerstone of democracy and needs to be protected as much as any rights. Max Mosley can be seen as nothing more than a bully and as with all bullies it is most satisfactory to see him taken down a peg or two.
In my opinion, NOTW was naive.
I would have published the story (without pictures or films) and allow Mosley to deny it. Then, if denied, they could have caught him in a "legal vice" in the terminology of briton lawyers, and it would have been proper and probably legal to publish the pictures and the clips.
