NEWS FROM THE CELTIC LEAGUE
There has been an astonishing reach for our post on the late Roly Drower and his legal battle with Gubay.
The post has achieved a reach of well over 8,500 people so far and the number is still rising.
Of course the major issue in the legal case was the use of the Anton Piller (purists will be glad to see I’ve spelt it correctly this time) order. It was a quite draconian device that stopped Roly discussing the issues even with his family.
I’ve been looking at the use of such a legal device and it is clear its use in the Drower case was not the purpose it was intended for (see below quote from a Singapore legal source).
In what the newspapers termed a ‘David and Goliath’ struggle it seems ‘Goliath’ also had the judicial establishment on his side!
Perhaps the late Deemster Kerruish rather than focus of Roly Drower’s journalistic credentials, in a disparaging manner, should have focused on why such a legal mechanism (Anton Pillar) was being used in the first place.
Of course it’s never to late for the Courts and the government to apologise over Drower’s treatment. However such an apology is unlikely until we establish just how much connivance there was by the government and judiciary in Drower’s shameful treatment.
His satirical style although always focused on humour and not crude offense was a little to much for the Manx establishment they probably thought Drower ‘got his just deserts’.
Shame on them – a shame they still carry!
Note the opening sentence in the legal outline below and ask yourself was justice really done?
“The Anton Piller order was intended to be an exceptional remedy for extraordinary circumstances. It is said to be at the extremity of the court’s powers. In Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd, Shaw LJ summed up the English Court of Appeal decision on the Anton Piller jurisdiction thus:-
The overriding consideration of this salutary jurisdiction is that it is to be resorted to only in circumstances where the normal process of the law would be rendered nugatory if some immediate and effective measure was not available. And, when such an order is made, the party who has procured the court to make it must act with prudence and caution in pursuance of it.
However, since the Anton Piller jurisdiction was first recognised, it has been resorted to so frequently, on many occasions unnecessarily, that the Anton Piller order has become trite. As a result of the frequency of the orders being applied for and granted, both the court and the applicants had in some cases failed to subject Anton Piller applications to the close scrutiny which was required and had inadvertently allowed a certain degree of laxity in observing the strict standard of fairness and probity in the application for and execution of Anton Piller orders. That have led to the criticism that “an exceptional device intended to avoid injustice has become almost a routine method of creating it”.
In England, judicial recognition that something had gone amiss with the Anton Piller practice was given by Scott J in Columbia Picture Industries Inc v Robinson3 where, after a lengthy commentary on the development and criticism of the Anton Piller procedure he said that “the practice of the court has allowed the balance to swing much too far in favour of the plaintiffs”
There’s a misconception no one spoke out forcefully about Roly’s treatment at the time but one body did MEC VANNIN in a memorial issue of Yn Pabyr Seyr in 2008 which as well as focusing on his life generally also focused on the Gubay, Corkill and other exposures on the internet – link here – its well worth a read:
Issued by: The Celtic News
THE CELTIC LEAGUE INFORMATION SERVICE.
The Celtic League established in 1961 has branches in the six Celtic Countries. It promotes cooperation between the countries and campaigns on a range of political, cultural and environmental matters. It highlights human rights abuse, military activity and socio-economic issues