Labour’s vengeful and absurd vendetta, part 151
JVL Introduction
Once again, those who run the Labour Party and abuse the funds of its members, have received a rebuff from the Courts.
Here the Party was attempting to make public normally privileged private correspondence between former Corbyn chief of staff Karie Murphy and her lawyer. Reasons for doing so are obscure and seem entirely vindictive, the Party making no suggestion that the message contained anything incriminating!
As Skwawkbox says, Starmer’s leadership has seen massive payouts and reckless legal efforts in an effort to rubbish the leaked report. Entirely unsuccessfully.
Will the Party learn anything from this latest judicial rebuff? Don’t hold your breath.
And don’t expect a genuine implementation of the Forde Report’s recommendations anytime soon.
This article was originally published by Skwawkbox on Tue 25 Apr 2023. Read the original here.
Labour facing six-figure legal bill after losses in case against former Corbyn staff
Party’s attempts to bring innocuous emails between Karie Murphy and her lawyer struck down, causing even bigger funding gap for general election
The Labour party’s attempt to bring private correspondence between former Corbyn chief of staff Karie Murphy and her lawyer as evidence in its attempt to sue five former party staff over the infamous leaked Labour report exposing racism, fraud and sabotage by right-wing staffers has been rejected by a judge, leaving the party facing a huge legal bill even before the main case concludes. ‘Mainstream’ media appear to have ignored the result.
Ms Murphy had not attempted to obtain an injunction against the release of the email, instead relying on the normal privileged status of communications between client and lawyer. The party made no suggestion that the message, which it has already seen after being able to access Murphy’s private email, contained anything incriminating and confirmed it was not even attempting to argue ‘iniquity’ – the one potential legal route for breaking privilege – further reinforcing the fact that the email was not incriminating. Murphy and her solicitor have testified that there is nothing relevant in the email.
Labour has already admitted that it doesn’t really know – despite spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on forensic investigators – who leaked the report and that it has no ‘smoking gun’ showing anyone was responsible, yet it tried to override legal privilege anyway.
Labour now faces a six-figure bill for the legal costs of its failed application – a situation the party can ill afford given the reported £15 million shortfall in its funds for the next general election campaign, which has already caused concern among members of its national executive about the soaring costs of its bizarre legal action. The Information Commissioner (ICO) has already ruled that there is no evidence to support a claim that any particular individual had obtained or released personal information unlawfully.
The judge also ruled that the party knew that Ms Murphy was unaware that Labour still had access to her personal correspondence – and that it acted wrongly in not informing her about it:
Against this background, the fact that Ms Murphy imposed no constraints on the searches that could be undertaken is of little significance. She mistakenly believed that she did not need to impose such constraints, because her personal information had been removed. The Labour Party’s IT staff knew this to be false but quite deliberately did not alert her to this fact.
[The Labour Party] should have realised that it was confidential.
The judge also ordered Labour to re-plead the entire basis it thinks it has for suing the five former staff.
Keir Starmer’s grim tenure as Labour leader has been punctuated by reckless legal spending in an attempt to hide or deflect from sabotage by right-wing staff exposed by the leaked report – including a decision to pay hundreds of thousands to right-wing staff named in the report to settle a case the party’s lawyers expected to win easily.
Now the regime’s profligacy has dug an even deeper financial hole from which its next general election campaign will struggle to climb out. As happens regularly, his allies in the so-called ‘mainstream’ media are ignoring it.
It’s part of the bullying and intimidation which is the Labour Right’s modus operandi. They may expensively lose cases but the message is still there that dissent may result in (personally) ruinous litigation. As a method of control they may well consider the costs worthwhile.
Their corrupt sensibilities are making them stupid. At what point will their behaviours become so foolishly destructive that the MSM and indeed the UK will not be able to ignore them? They are a viral disease, slowly destroying the party, consuming it from the inside till there will be nothing left of it. By the time they are done, any chance of this country has of retaining whatever claim to be a functioning democracy, however slight or illusory that already is, will be dead.
I am slightly surprised to see you describe the leaked report as “infamous”. If the report had turned out to be a tissue of lies, then the description might be appropriate. Forde has demonstrated reasonably conclusively that the report is anything but. What is surely infamous is the behaviour of those who should be shouting from the rooftops the findings of the original report, as well as Forde’s conclusions, and instead do everything they can to discredit it; and that includes saying nothing. Inaction in the face of wrongdoing is as damning as the wrong sort of action.
That is Skwawkbox’s use of the word “infamous”. JVL merely reposted their article.
Disgusting mismanagement of the LP y slipper Starmer.
Given that Starmer is a lawyer they must have known that the communications were privileged and could not be viewed. Furthermore once she had left the organisation DPA says they may not keep any personal data; to do so is an offence – and he must know that too. Is he turning into Netanyahu?
Chicken coup scabs waisting members money on calmers stalinist principles against anybody who may have socialist democratic principles
“Labour has already admitted that it doesn’t really know – despite spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on forensic investigators – who leaked the report ”
The real question is why was it necessary to leak the report?
Answer: it would not have seen the light of day otherwise.
Seeking the leaker is so often the first move taken by all secretive, unsavoury organisations in order to intimidate future would-be bean-spillers and to avoid that which has been revealed.
Party internal democracy has evaporated in 3 short years, leaving anyone taking a bit of interest (MSM???) in Starmer’s actions knowing that his first priority has always been to destroy the left of the party.