#And I am Nathaniells defence lawyer

[nathaniel-underwood-is-an-intj]

Looong rant about chapter 16 Ptolemy's Gate and how being passive can add to the cycle of ab*se.

oof so I just read when Nat goes to see Ms Lutyens and I can't help but be absolutely furious at her??

I know that's maybe a little bit unfair given she's frightened of him as a magician and is obviously angry when she finds out the department he's responsible for, but honestly it kinda brings up the problem with inadvertent bystanders to child ab*se in my mind.

And I'm definitely not blaming her solely for who Nat becomes but it makes me think of all those people in huge child ab*se cases who give interviews to press about all the things they noticed that were wrong but they just...never do anything?

She stood up for him against Lovelace, and when Nat thanked her- "I wanted to say that I know you were trying to save me, and-"

''Yes, and I'm sorry I didn't" Like girl be for real did you really think that alone would undo the years of indoctrination and abuse he's already suffered and prevent years worth of the same in the years to come? And she won't take responsibility - "My job is with children, not the adults they become" and again while it seems harsh to blame her for who Nat becomes, it's so much easier to pass the blame to people who are more directly responsible rather than acknowledging you also play a part.

I think it hurts so much more because it's her specifically- Nat goes to her in sheer desperation, it almost seems like a goodbye- he wants to thank her, tries to set her up in a job that will pay well and struggles to communicate he's trying to help. At this point he thinks Bartimaeus has been summoned by another magician and his birth name will be revealed. He's sure he's about to die and if not he'll be stood on trial and lose everything.

He goes to her because she represents the peaceful moments from his childhood when he got away from his master. He's scared and feeling lost and really it's call for help; but he doesn't ask for anything he just wants to make her feel proud of him- he's looking for that validation that he's been chasing since childhood.

And that shows he still does have that little bit of childhood innocence in him; he thinks she will be proud, thinks she'll see him as the same little boy in the garden gazing up at his teacher in adoration. He can't quite grasp why she's separated the man stood before her from that little boy. Because in that moment the child inside Nathaniel is seeking comfort AND THAT'S WHY it makes me so angry. She's completely given up on him when he's at his lowest ebb, because she doesn't want to be associated with the magician he's become. As if it isn't a massive step in the right direction that he saught her out in the first place- what other magican would bother? I wonder if that's why she reacted so strongly to seeing him again? Before that moment she could go about her life wondering if /pretending her attempt to protect him was enough, and now she realises it wasn't, of course it wasn't, and the image she had of Nathaniel's childhood innocence is completely ruined in her mind.

Or was her contempt for him even grater than Nat realised? She was naturally disgusted by the rhetoric he'd started to repeat from a young age, and gently tried to correct him although she was clearly angry- was she just resigned to the fact that there is little else she could do to change his future? I always thought- couldn't she have looked for him? The Underwood house fire was in the papers and they mentioned the apprentice was being searched for. Did she ever worry about him? Surely something must have been in the papers since- an announcement of new ministers, ANYTHING! Look at how much research Kitty did to find out about Bartimaeus and Ptolemy. I just don't think Rosanna Lutyens cared enough, realistically Nathaniel wasn't hard to find- but he was no longer her responsibility so she could turn a blind eye.

And sadly it's not just her- I know everyone loves Martha Underwood including Nat; but I think her submissiveness to her husband has a negative effect on Nathaniel as well. In AOS when Nat is locked in his room for ages after setting the mites loose, and is forbidden to have any contact with anyone and she won't talk with him. I know she's been told by Mr. Underwood she can't, but it still boils my blood. She's an adult and going along with ignoring Nathaniel because her husband told her to...I can't even begin to imagine the psychological damage that would do to a 10 year old child. (It could be argued she's frightened of the consequences if her husband finds out she's disobeyed him which is fair, he could always be watching through magic- but this is Arthur Underwood we're talking about. He's lazy, oblivious and weak I doubt he'd expend all that energy each day to check up on her.)

And It's even more painful that Nathaniel is often described as fiercely loyal to her and I think to Ms Lutyens as well- he doesn't expect to be treated well by Arthur Underwood but he loved Mrs Underwood and Ms Lutyens so much he started to view them through a rose-coloured lense. He never feels betrayed by either of them, even though they absolutely let him down, because the pedestal he's put them on is too high AND THAT ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS ME.

Would things with Nathaniel have been any different if Mrs Underwood hadn't died? I don't really think so. Do you think she'd see Nathaniel's temper at 14 years old and be reminded of Arthur Underwood? He was awful, absolutely awful to Nat and to her; but he was under so much stress in an underfunded departement, where pressure was being put on him by superiors to accomplish far more than they knew him to be capable of, and he took it out on the easiest target. Nathaniel ends up in exactly the same place and he starts to take it out on the only person around him- Bartimaeus. Would he snap at Mrs Underwood all the time if she were still there? Because he's learnt that behaviour from his father figure, and subconsciously learnt from his mother figure that she'll put up with it. He learnt from the woman he loved so deeply, that if you don't resist, people will walk all over you. So you have to maintain control even if it ends up hurting people you care about because no one will step in to stop the suffering no matter how much you love them, no matter how much you want them too.

It's easy to blame Arthur Underwood and Simon Lovelace and the magicians that actively hurt Nathaniel but I just feel like it's a bit disingenuous not to acknowledge the role of those doing passive harm. It's really mean to say it but even Bartimaeus plays a role- he knows Nat is clinging on to him because he can't 'bring himself to break this last connection' (to his childhood) but instead of bringing it up properly he 'taunts' Nathaniel- a boy who has been taunted for his weakness by his master for years. And even in AOS when Nathaniel tells Bartimaeus he was beaten for the mites incident Bart just kinda shrugs it off. Like I get it, why should Bartimaeus do anything, he's suffered way worse due to the system so he doesn't owe Nat anything right? But from Nat's point of view this is the first and only time he's mentioned to anyone what has happened to him and nothing changes. It's like another lesson learnt: telling someone about it doesn't help. Another nail in the coffin.

And I like all these characters, I feel bad for them. They're all victims of the system, I think the chapter with Ms Lutyens is just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. All of those little opportunities that are insignificant to the narrative over all; the commoners have it worse, Nathaniel is in a privileged position in society, exerting control over others. He's very morally grey, crossing over into objectively bad person territory but I love him with my whole heart and all of those insignificant moments would have been massive to him whether he was conscious of it or not.

And it goes all the way back to the beginning with Nat's parents giving him up to the magicians at 5 years old. I can't get the image of that little boy sat crying all alone in the government building. And he's not going somewhere safer, or somewhere he'll be happier and more loved. Giving your child over to a total stranger, oh he'll be totally fine won't he? He'll grow up to be a magician and far richer than you'll ever be, he'll be happy and comfortable and be grateful he got to grow up in luxury. There's no way a stranger you've never met, who the majority of society is terrified of would ever hurt a vulnerable little kid right? And if they do? Well you aren't responsible anymore, how could you know? What could you possibly do against the magician taking care of him?

Every little thing is another grain of sand tipping the scale. Did anyone else have to analyse An Inspector Calls in school? It feels like that to me- those BIG moments and all the little moments in between that add onto the pile.

And it goes on to cause problems in wider society too- ab*se is so normalised to the magicians, they casually ask Underwood if he hits Nathaniel like it's nothing. Because to them it is nothing, they've all grown up in the same circumstances and are repeating what they've learnt as children. I can't help but feel a little sorry for them all, especially when they aren't looked at through the black and white lense of 'argh these people are the evil arseholes look at how they treat everyone around them, screw these guys.' When we see those little glimpses of humanity like Simon's anxiety with the amulet; looking to his master and father figure Schyler for reassurance, and what's sad is that Nat is "reminded...of his own master's cold impatience" It's clear Simon looks up to his master, wants to make him proud and loves him. But it seems like Schyler has just trained Simon up so he can get power through him later on. I love the little hints of similarities between Simon and Nathaniel; the anxious mannerisms like fiddling with his hair that Nathaniel starts to develop, the way their master's talk to them. Even though they're actively working against each other in AOS and Simon is placed firmly in the baddies category and Nat in the goodies category at this point in the series; these things always hinted to me they had similar childhoods, how was Simon treated? When he had the imp beat Nat into unconsciousness, was it because he'd had the same punishment used against him? Did he know the magicians in the room would do nothing to stop him because no one stopped it from happening to him? Did he ever have a teacher stand up for him only for it to change nothing in the end because all the negative influences were so much stronger? Is the reason he loves Schyler like a dad because he's almost developed Stockholm syndrome? It looks like love because he's never known anything else.

And Arthur Underwood- who doesn't think his upbringing, and being taken away from his family ever did him any harm- doesn't realise the harm done is that he doesn't even know another way of raising Nathaniel, because he was never shown another way. His childhood may also have been filled with people who hurt him and the people that didn't do enough to intervene.

There are so many psychology studies that show children copy everything they see the adults in their life doing. Nathaniel copies the magicians behaviour towards spirits and on a subconscious level I think he copies all the submissive people in his life. How many times does he end up upset and frustrated with the fact he seems to be going nowhere and how many times does he just hope things will be different rather than taking postive action.

I dislike the actions the magicians end up taking but I also find them fascinating to analyse. I tend to prefer villains in media because they're usually slightly more complex individuals and I love to think about how they ended up that way. They can all be seen as victims of their circumstances in a way, despite all the power and privilege they have had terrible and traumatic childhoods, and if the commoners had no valuable worldy possessions at least they had a sense of togetherness; of love and understanding and selflessness. I wonder if the magicians hated them at least partly because of that. Because out in the sea of faces of the commoners talking about nothing important, doing nothing great and noble- could be the parents that abandoned them. And when your life is on the line daily because of working with spirits, and your colleagues want to stab you in the back, sometimes not being responsible for anything important looks good. But you can't leave your life as a magician, it would be too difficult; you have nowhere to go, no real friends, no one who really loves you. So it's better to stay and be a submissive bystander in your own life because it's so much easier.

Doing nothing is doing something- being passive can be just as harmful.

[carlldiaz]

There is no prospect of bringing a private prosecution against Dominic Cummings.

When private prosecutions are brought for political purposes they very rarely end well. In fact, I cannot think of a single example which has done so.

Readers will remember the fate of Marcus Ball who amidst great fanfare launched a private prosecution against Boris Johnson over the Vote Leave campaign bus slogan. Boris Johnson was accused of misfeasance in public office. The case ended in the Administrative Court on 3rd July 2019 when Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Supperstone ruled that he had failed to reveal any criminal conduct by Mr Johnson. Mr Ball’s prosecution, they strongly implied, was “vexatious.”

Like the limbless knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail Mr Ball vowed to fight on, and the crowd-funding continued until by October 9th 2019 11,421 people had contributed a total of £456,088, according to Mr Ball’s main Crowdfunder page.

The page now contains a confusing set of messages: at the top a picture of Mr Ball with the explanation:

“We DO NOT have enough money to complete this legal challenge. The Magistrates Court ruled in our favour. The High Court did not. We’re now trying to get our case into the Supreme Court. This is going to be a long and hard fight. We must challenge lying in UK politics.”

Below this is a cryptic and rather plaintive announcement:

“Message from Marcus: DO NOT FUND THIS PAGE.

Please wait for an update from me, I’ve encountered a serious problem. Please await news. Do not fund for the time being.

Thank you and kind regards,

Marcus J Ball

Crowdfunded Private Prosecutor”

Below this again, repeated 8 times, is yet another message:

PLEASE IGNORE BELOW INFORMATION:

The “below information” is the original detailed explanation of Mr Ball’s case against Mr Johnson, the one that crashed and burned in July 2019. Why Mr Ball has left all this information up on his crowdfunding page under an eight times repeated injunction to ignore it rather than simply deleting it is one of the minor mysteries of the case. There is less mystery over what the “serious problem” that he has encountered: he instigated a prosecution with virtually no chance of success and now faces an enormous bill for costs.

In fact, Mr Ball has, or had, several other crowdfunding pages, and says he has raised in total over £700,000 in donations, all of which appears to have gone down the plughole, mostly paid to his lawyers including at various times three different QCs. How he must wish he had listened to David Perry QC who wisely told him he didn’t stand much chance rather than Lewis Power QC who told him he had “reasonable prospects” of obtaining a conviction. He says he now owes approximately £246,000 in “court costs,” though presumably they are in fact the costs of Mr Johnson’s defence. A serious problem indeed.

As for Mr Ball himself: he announced last October that his “personal bankruptcy” and “company insolvency” was “going ahead,” although as of today his company “Stop Lying in Politics Ltd” (formerly known as Brexit Justice Ltd) is still active according to the Companies House website, and Mr Ball himself does not appear on the register of bankrupts. In the meantime, he has complained, unsuccessfully, about the impartiality of the judges and announced that he is now intending to bring a private prosecution in Scotland, although he will represent himself in court rather than instruct lawyers. It is hard to be optimistic about his chances of success.

All this should be a salutary warning for a law student called Mahsa Taliefar who now wants to bring a private prosecution against Dominic Cummings for breaching the lock-down regulations.

Mahsa Tielfar: would be private prosecutor

Ms Taliefar has followed in Mr Ball’s well-trodden steps and instructed some impressive legal talent of her own, including a classy firm of solicitors, Waterfords (who claim to provide “sensible and practical solutions to legal problems”), and barristers Benjamin Douglas-Jones QC and Nathaniel Rudolf. Mr Douglas Jones is described by the Legal 500 – a publication, I might say, that has never so much as mentioned Barristerblogger, even as a reasonably safe pair of hands in a pub punch-up where not too much is at stake – as “extremely bright … with the ability to marshall cases of the utmost complexity.” No less gushingly, Chambers and Partners directory describes him as “fantastic and incredibly hard-working.” Mr Rudolf is just as highly praised. He has, according to the Legal 500 “a phenomenal grasp of the law and procedure,” and it notes that “prosecutors fear having him as an opponent.” He is, according to Chambers and Partners directory – yet another legal version of Trip Adviser in which Barristerblogger is inexplicably overlooked – “an intellectual with excellent technical knowledge who also has the common sense and confidence to drive that knowledge in a helpful and practical way for clients. … He is extremely thorough and has in-depth knowledge of the law.”

Last week Ms Taliefar received the 48 page joint “Preliminary Advice” from these barristers and she has published it online. She had asked for an opinion on the chances of successfully prosecuting Mr Cummings for a number of offences apart from those under the Coronavirus Regulations, including careless driving, fraud, misconduct in public office and even outraging public decency.

The barristers – who were asked to confine themselves to just 5 hours work each on the advice – gave a firm thumbs down on the driving, fraud and misconduct in public office, even citing R (on the application of Boris Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2019] 1 WLR 6238 (better, albeit slightly inaccurately known as Ball v. Johnson) in support of their view that Mr Cummings was not guilty of misconduct in public office.

The idea that he might be charged with outraging public decency is, sensibly, given even shorter shrift:

“We have considered the replete exegesis of the law concerning that offence in R v Hamilton [2008] 2 WLR 107, in which Thomas LJ (as he then was) gave the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Having reviewed the authorities, we are of the view that evidential sufficiency is not made out.”

However, on the main issue of whether there was a possibility of a private prosecution for breach of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 they came to a very different conclusion. Mr Cummings’s conduct, they wrote:

“involved the commission of two prima facie offences contrary to Regulation 6. There is a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of each of them. We do not consider that Regulation 11 of the Regulations prohibits a private prosecution. In the event of a summons being issued, this will be the subject of legal argument, we anticipate.”

I am always reluctant to criticise the work of my fellow counsel, particularly those much more distinguished than myself, as Mr Douglas-Jones and Mr Rudolf undoubtedly both are. However, another barrister, Maidstone based Phillip Sinclair, has done the work for me. He suggested, only slightly tentatively, that Mr Douglas-Jones’s Advice was wrong. Mr Douglas-Jones and Mr Rudolf, he said, had overlooked Section 64 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984.

This all sounds rather technical but if Mr Sinclair is right Ms Taliefar has received duff advice from her barristers.

The question is: who has the right to prosecute for a breach of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations?

I will not trouble you with a replete exigesis of my own on the law surrounding private prosecutions generally. Those who enjoy that sort of thing can look at paragraphs 57 – 66 of the Douglas-Jones / Rudolf Advice itself where it is discussed in great detail, with numerous references to legislation and Supreme Court judgments. In general – and I am over-simplifying – anyone can bring a private prosecution for any offence, except where it is expressly forbidden.

Douglas-Jones and Rudolf correctly spotted that Regulation 11 provides:

“Proceedings for an offence under these Regulations may be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service and any person designated by the Secretary of State.”

But this, say the barristers, is no bar to Ms Taliefar.

“Had the intention of Regulation 11 been to preclude private prosecutions the word ‘only’ would naturally have been included between ‘may’ and ‘be’ in Regulation 11.

“ … A private prosecution may be classed as a ‘constitutional’ right founded in statute (or common law). It would require the most explicit language to extinguish that right.”

Since the Regulations do not contain such explicit language, they conclude, Ms Taliefar has the right to bring a prosecution herself.

All this would be sound advice were it not for the awkward fact pointed out by Mr Sinclair: S.64 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which provides:

(1) Proceedings in respect of an offence created by a provision of, or regulations under, this Act may not be taken by any person other than—

(a) a relevant health protection authority,

(b) a body whose function it is to enforce the provision or regulation in question, or

(c) a person who made (or whose predecessors made) the regulation in question.

Since the Regulation which Mr Cummings is accused of breaching was made under the authority of this Act, this section poses a problem for Ms Taliefar.

She is not a relevant health protection authority, she is not a body whose function it is to enforce the regulation in question (rather a vague phrase admittedly, but it obviously includes the CPS and excludes her) and nor is she a person who made (or whose predecessors made) the regulation in question (that would be Mr Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health).

So it seems, unless Mr Douglas-Jones and Mr Rudolf have some bright ideas that are not included in their Advice, the law unambiguously prevents her from bringing a private prosecution. I am even going to stick my neck out in a way that barristers seldom do: her planned private prosecution does not have reasonable prospects of success. It has no prospects of success whatsoever.

In a way this is good news, and not just because private prosecutions have a huge potential for injustice – whatever they may say it is usually very difficult to see how private prosecutors can ever be entirely trusted to put the public interest ahead of their own private interests – but also because Ms Tielfar has promised that any funds not spent on her legal mission impossible will be sent to Vision Aid Overseas, an excellent charity that provides eye care to people in Ghana who could not otherwise afford it.

Needless to say, money is still pouring in to Ms Tielfar’s crowd-funding page: over £41,000 when I last looked.

Messrs Douglas-Jones and Rudolf conclude their Advice:

“If we can be of any further assistance once further funding is in place, please do not hesitate to contact us.”

Well, it seems further funding is now in place and Ms Tielfar might be well-advised to contact them immediately. If Mr Sinclair is right – and I have no doubt that he is – it should take them, as he says it took take him, a mere 20 minutes to discover what, bluntly, they should have spotted when she asked them the first time: that Ms Tielfar has absolutely zero chance of bringing a private prosecution. The sooner she realises it, the more the visually impaired people of Ghana stand to benefit.

In the meantime if you wish to contribute to Vision Aid Overseas might I suggest that you cut out the middle men, the solicitors and the barristers, and donate directly, here. As you will see, just £5.00 can pay for an eye test and a pair of glasses.

The post There is no prospect of bringing a private prosecution against Dominic Cummings. appeared first on BarristerBlogger.

source https://barristerblogger.com/2020/07/01/there-is-no-prospect-of-bringing-a-private-prosecution-against-dominic-cummings/