I meant to add this quote from an earlier BBC news report
(<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8201152.stm>)
"Mr Justice Akenhead said in his ruling: "There was an extended period
between 1983 and August 1997 in which Corby Borough Council was extensively
negligent in its control and management of the sites which they acquired
from British Steel and otherwise used.
"Corby Borough Council is liable in public nuisance, negligence and breach
of statutory duty, obviously subject to it being established in later
proceedings by individual claimants that their particular conditions were
actually caused by the defaults identified in this judgment." "
I don't see how the council can argue those points - but the judge makes it
clear that this negligence and breach of statutory duty is "obviously
subject to it being established in later proceedings by individual
claimants that their particular conditions were actually caused by the
defaults identified in this judgment". This is all clearly stated in the
judgement - the claimants need to prove beyond reasonable doubt (which
isn't, for example, with 30% confidence) that their conditions were caused
by the council's negligence. Beyond reasonable doubt surely has to be with
95% confidence - no?
Pete Millis
Centre for Environmental Research
School of Life Sciences
University of Sussex
Falmer
Brighton BN1 9QJ
and
Rottingdean Garden and Landscape Services Ltd
Old School House
Telscombe Village
Nr. Lewes
BN7 3HY
--On 21 August 2009 15:32 +0100 Marie Mitchinson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8210753.stm
>
> FYI guys, Friday afternoon discussion.....
|