ANOTHER VOICE
The legal conspiracy which makes fools of us all
AUBERON WAUGH
Before the trial of the Maxwell broth- ers, Kevin and Ian, and two others opened at a court specially prepared for it in Chancery Lane, the trial judge, Mr Justice Phillips, sent a letter to the legal depart- ments of every national newspaper which has been the bane of press commentators ever since.
The name Maxwell has had the effect of putting the wind up newspaper lawyers for many years, ever since Cap'n Bob started using the deck of libel actions he had pend- ing at any given moment to threaten con- tempt proceedings under the sub judice rule on anyone who dared mention his name in the slightest disparagement. Even the tiny office of Literary Review was visited by two heavy gentlemen from his office who demanded a copy of the magazine which was rumoured to carry a review of the unofficial biography he was seeking to ban. Trembling, I gave them a copy of the wrong issue which they took away. That was the last we heard of the matter, but it was a sobering thought that the legal team behind Maxwell in those days was headed by nothing less than a retired Lord Chan- cellor. For those who are unaware of the niceties involved, I should point out that the Lord High Chancellor of England is the highest law officer in the land who not only supervises all government legislation and presides over the House of Lords but also appoints all the judges and is the only per- son capable of dismissing a judge. He is the capo di tutti capi of the legal profession and supreme head of our legal system.
Lord Havers was receiving £8,000 a year as Lord Chancellor in 1988, more than any judge, and his pension on retirement was considerably greater than a prime minis- ter's. Perhaps he took up the supervision of Captain Maxwell's legal affairs — deciding who should receive a 'gagging' writ, who should face full proceedings — as a sort of hobby on retirement. I do not know. Nor can we know whether he advised on the legality of the proceedings under dispute in the present trial. If they are upheld, the legal profession will probably decide that he did; if they are not upheld, that he didn't. But there can be no doubt that whatever his enemies may have said about him in the past (no such sentiments would be permissible at present) the late Robert Maxwell was a great benefactor of the legal profession in his time.
I say 'the late Robert Maxwell' because that is the conventional thing to say, although I was never convinced by stories of his death. It seemed inconceivable to me that they could have found one semi-float- ing body in the 80,000 square miles of Atlantic Ocean on offer. At the time, I haz- arded that they had picked up the corpse of a small white whale. Foreign doctors could not be expected to tell the difference, and that is what was buried with great pomp on the Mount of Olives. He would be back to sue us all, I warned, in the great gale of defamation which greeted the story of his death.
Alive or dead, he continues to benefit the legal profession. The trial of his two sons and two others is estimated to cost £30 mil- lion, nearly all in legal fees. The lawyer would not be human who did not feel a bit protective towards the old boy. Mr Justice Phillips's warning to the newspapers made two major points. Nothing must be pub- lished which by assumption or implication suggests that Robert Maxwell was a villain. The reason for this is that the first charge, against Kevin Maxwell alone, alleges a criminal conspiracy between the two of them, and it might indeed be prejudicial if one party to the alleged conspiracy is assumed to be a criminal already. Fair enough. I have always kept an open mind on the point, in any case.
The second point in Mr Justice Phillips's warning was that nothing should be pub- lished which seemed to criticise the grant- ing of legal aid to the Maxwell brothers, since this might prejudice the presumption of innocence. I suppose that is fair enough, too, although the issue of legal aid is entire- ly different from the issue of innocence or guilt. Kevin Maxwell is bankrupt and Ian Maxwell's funds are frozen. Legal aid is obviously in order.
But we must not allow our acceptance of that to embrace acceptance of the feast. which the legal profession has been enjoy- ing for the last three years at the public expense, and will continue to enjoy for the next six months. Once again, this is not the fault of the defendants. They can only respond to what the Serious Fraud Office throws at them. It is true that they have hired the most expensive solicitors in the field — Kingsley Napley for Ian, Peters and Peters for Kevin — but they are also the Classified on pages 60, 61 and 62
best, and the Crown is fielding equally heavy guns. The cost of legal aid for the defence was £4,745,391 up to 24 January this year (having increased by £717,000 since November) but the taxpayer's cost from the Serious Fraud Office was £8.9 million to January.
In fact, all the running in this great extravaganza has been made by the Serious Fraud Office. Although large sums are involved, the issues are fairly simple, involving the alleged transfer of funds allegedly held in trust for Mirror Group pensioners in two Israeli companies to the uses of a private company called Robert Maxwell Group plc. I do not know what has been agreed, but all that is required to be established is whether the funds existed, whether they were in trust to Mirror Group pensioners, whether the transfer occurred, whether, if so, it was legal or illegal, and if illegal, which, if any, of the defendants were implicated. With the essential docu- mentation, and only the essential documen- tation, to hand, the matter could be settled in three days.
My father used to say that there was no message between human beings which could not be communicated on the back of a postcard. Allowing for the illiteracy and long-windedness of so many lawyers, we might permit them four pages of lined A4. Forget about juries, put the papers before a competent judge after three weeks' prepa- ration, and you will have your verdict in three days.
Instead of which, we will witness half a dozen QCs ticking away like taximeters in court for six months with their daily atten- dance allowance and refreshers (senior lawyers need constant refreshing) while nobody is allowed to comment on the cir- cumstance, let alone complain about it. We cannot blame the defence, let alone the defendants, for this appalling spectacle, but the arrogance with which the legal profes- sion, in unholy combine, has set about milking the public, waffling through 20 tons of redundant documents, seems calculated to make fools of us all. We cannot com- plain of a scam, because that might suggest illegality and nothing could be more legal than what they are doing. It is the rules which are rotten. We lack both the intelli- gence and the energy to change them. So let the lawyers laugh at us, all the way to the bank. Do they ever wonder what sort of fools we think they are?
Previous page
