 |
| Home |
| Political News |
| Meet Your Local MP |
| Comment |
| Have Your Say |
| Campaigns |
| Theresa May |
| John Redwood |
| Martin Salter |
| Rob Wilson |
| Richard Benyon |
| Useful Links |
- AAT Courses
- Absolute Health and Safety Solutions Limited
- Business lead generation
- Customer testimonials
- Diamond drilling
- First page seo
- Information Drivers
- Kids in Berkshire
- LIVE answering service
- Mary Flavelle
- NRG Networks
- On this day in history
- Outbound telemarketing services
- Personal business coach
- Positive energy
- Promotional micro sites
- Sales force outsourcing
- Sales training consultancy
- Technical Concrete Cutting Limited
- Windsor Vehicle Leasing
|
Benyon writes to Lord Chancellor
|
|||
Dear Lord Chancellor
Ufton Nervet Rail Crash I am writing on behalf of my constituent, David Main and his son Toby. Mr Main’s wife, Anjanette, and his daughter, Louella, were killed in the Ufton rail crash in 2004. It was recommended by the Legal Services Commission that Mr Main should receive funding to cover legal expenses during the Inquest. This decision was opposed by your Department, but upheld in the High Court (Case Number CO/1357/2006), when Mr Justice Owen found in favour of my constituent. To the dismay of my constituent, and many of the victims of the Ufton Nervet rail crash, it was announced that your Department was appealing against this decision. I do not think I can over-emphasise the devastating impact this decision has had on Mr Main and his family. Like all of the victims of this accident, they simply want to know what happened on that night, and what steps are being taken to learn from it in terms of railway safety. In particular, they want to know why there were no laminated windows on First Great Western trains, so people died going through the windows, and why it is not possible to have a detection system to spot obstacles at level crossings. They want to move on with their lives, but are unable to do so while this Inquest is delayed. It is clear that the Department feels that there will be financial implications for other cases if this judgement is accepted. This is a matter that is disputed by my constituent’s solicitors. They say it is clear that the judge decided the matter on the facts of the particular case, and his judgement did not challenge the right of the Government to turn down the recommendations of the Legal Services Commission in other cases. They question the information given in a letter from Vera Baird to me. They claim that the cost limit on the public funding certificate governing the amount of costs which could be claimed from the Legal Services Commission if the claimant had lost the case, was £25,000. In the event, since the claimant has won, the claimant’s costs are likely to be substantially in excess of £25,000. The costs for the Government will also be of a similar degree. At the recent Court Hearing, there were possibly as many as four officials from your Department in the Court, as well as the Legal Team, present for a full two-day hearing. All of this must mean that the costs to date are at least four times the amount of the funding for the legal representation, which would come to some £13,000. If this appeal goes ahead, there will be a further substantial cost to the taxpayer. I am writing to you on behalf of Mr Main and so many victims of this accident, to ask that you could look into this case as a matter of urgency, to see whether it would be possible for the appeal to be withdrawn and for the Inquest to proceed as planned. Alternatively, my constituent’s solicitors have suggested that you grant public funding to enable the long delayed Inquest to proceed, and they will undertake not to argue that the appeal is an academic one. At the very least, it would be good for Mr Main to hear why this appeal is taking place and why he and so many families are having to endure further delays in the process of resolving this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Richard Benyon 17/05/07
|
|
Wordtracker |
|
|
