Richard: It must be relatively easy, if you are an experienced and brilliant-minded lawyer, to engage your equally brilliant-minded peers in intellectual challenges over the exact number of angels dancing on heads of pins. That is what Alman is doing here (to my not-so-brilliant mind).
He may well be right to appear so confident in the outcome of his day spent trading legal niceties with barrister colleagues at the Inquiry. But I don't think the ordinary punter looking on will have been fooled by his assessment of himself for more than a few minutes.
This man could and patently should have blown the whole thing wide open. He was uniquely placed to do it. But of course we don't get to judge.
My bet is that the barristers mixed up in this scandal will all get a free pass from the Inquiry. The in-house and contracted solicitors might not fare so well....
When I was a brand new lawyer I worked for an organisation with criminal investigatory powers and functions, although not prosecution. I was full of the zeal of my recent training and took the obligations very seriously on pain of serious consequences for me personally abc the organisation. But was sort of disabused of this by the old hacks. They explained I needed to check things like warrant applications exceptionally carefully and ensure they were scrupulously fair and accurate - because the courts would stamp anything, and always assume what they were being told by a person in authority was fine and never look behind it. So it was very important that we did not abuse that because individual rights were at stake. It’s clear no one in the PO was thinking like this.
BA KA has an obviously towering intellect & memory and legendary experience. With that “undelphically” in mind, it does not pass the laughter test that he did not consciously consider the points of fairness & disclosure in preparing his advices. I would suggest that a combination of inevitable ego and his reputation alone made & make him feel untouchable to give whatever ‘technical’ advice he deemed/deems fit for his clients. The hourly rate likely didn’t hurt either. Fascinated to go on to read the Hamlyn lectures you referenced. I am not a lawyer, but an experienced CFO/COO with a transparently strong moral compass. I would never be employed by POL!! Thank you for your fascinating & thought provoking posts, Professor Moorhead.
Richard: It must be relatively easy, if you are an experienced and brilliant-minded lawyer, to engage your equally brilliant-minded peers in intellectual challenges over the exact number of angels dancing on heads of pins. That is what Alman is doing here (to my not-so-brilliant mind).
He may well be right to appear so confident in the outcome of his day spent trading legal niceties with barrister colleagues at the Inquiry. But I don't think the ordinary punter looking on will have been fooled by his assessment of himself for more than a few minutes.
This man could and patently should have blown the whole thing wide open. He was uniquely placed to do it. But of course we don't get to judge.
My bet is that the barristers mixed up in this scandal will all get a free pass from the Inquiry. The in-house and contracted solicitors might not fare so well....
When I was a brand new lawyer I worked for an organisation with criminal investigatory powers and functions, although not prosecution. I was full of the zeal of my recent training and took the obligations very seriously on pain of serious consequences for me personally abc the organisation. But was sort of disabused of this by the old hacks. They explained I needed to check things like warrant applications exceptionally carefully and ensure they were scrupulously fair and accurate - because the courts would stamp anything, and always assume what they were being told by a person in authority was fine and never look behind it. So it was very important that we did not abuse that because individual rights were at stake. It’s clear no one in the PO was thinking like this.
BA KA has an obviously towering intellect & memory and legendary experience. With that “undelphically” in mind, it does not pass the laughter test that he did not consciously consider the points of fairness & disclosure in preparing his advices. I would suggest that a combination of inevitable ego and his reputation alone made & make him feel untouchable to give whatever ‘technical’ advice he deemed/deems fit for his clients. The hourly rate likely didn’t hurt either. Fascinated to go on to read the Hamlyn lectures you referenced. I am not a lawyer, but an experienced CFO/COO with a transparently strong moral compass. I would never be employed by POL!! Thank you for your fascinating & thought provoking posts, Professor Moorhead.