Am I reading this right? Lawyers for the girl were sueing “her mother”? But if found ‘guilty’ the state would have paid out?

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/04/mother-drank-heavily-pregnant-not-guilty-crime

My understanding was that they were appealing so that it would be considered a criminal injury and so she could claim compensation for it (Yes the state would pay like they do for other injuries sustained due to violent crime etc)

All about budgets. One taxpayer funded organisation suing another. The only winners are the lawyers.

Lawyers for the girl were sueing “her mother”?

Just because it’s a bugbear of mine…the lawyers were not suing anyone.

A local authority brought the action.

The only winners are the lawyers.

Unless of course it was pro bono, or you were on shite legal aid rates, or your tight arse local authority client insisted on a crap blended rate and a partner ended up having to do all the work because it became more complex, or you hit your cap and were working for free, or you had shit recovery, or you were on a low rate as a loss leader, or the client doesn’t agree your fees, or you charged a fair rate and didn’t make much out of it, or the judge made an award of costs which didn’t work out favourably for you… etc 🙂

A local authority brought the action.

On legal advice no doubt…

No one was being sued.

The case was to decide whether a criminal act had been committed against the unborn child – in which case the child might be entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (the same as other victims of violent crimes).

However the judges ruled that an unborn child is not a person and therefore ineligible.

There is significant subtext to this case. The judge ruled that no crime had taken place:

‘Lord Justice Treacy said an “essential ingredient” for a crime to be committed “is the infliction of grievous bodily harm on a person – grievous bodily harm on a foetus will not suffice”.’

Which, if the decision had gone the other way, would have thrown a whole pile of petrol and a lit match into the Right to Lifers vs Womens Right to Choose debate.

Interesting – context is so much in these cases.

On legal advice no doubt…

Erm, that’s sort of that they do.

You say “I’d like something done about this”
They say “OK, here are your options”

The case you’ve cited is hardly in the realm of ambulance chasers hora.

However the judges ruled that an unborn child is not a person and therefore ineligible.

What happens if someone aborts a foetus? (Seriously, what is the legal position here – like the Vicar who has just been charged for the murder of a stillborn child (although I know the full details aren’t clear here) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-30322893

What happens if someone aborts a foetus?

Depends on the gestation of the foetus and the medical qualifications of the person doing it.

Erm, that’s sort of that they do.

It’s that they does.

Jesus. Does no-ones cares about the languages more?

The one thing I’ve taken from the case is that some people really shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

What happens if someone aborts a foetus?

Foetus = not a person, not murder
Baby out = person, murder

(I could be wrong, it’s been a while)

Peterfile do you think they said along the lines of ‘we think you have a case’? If they felt there was a chance then they’d make money. If they said we advice caution then the Solicitors don’t get fees/etc ongoing do they? Your mightily trusting. There is ethics but there is also financial rewards (and pressure) to go ahead with a case using a clients money? After all, unless said-solicitors took it on on a no-win-no-fee basis can you trust their motives in such cases?

BTW, when I said that, it wasn’t some anti-abortion hyperbole, it was simply making a distinction between a born and unborn child.

For example, if a woman threw herself down some stairs in order to kill the 8 month old developing baby she was carrying, would she be charged with murder?

Interesting – context is so much in these cases.

I’m guessing the local authority are paying for the child’s continuing care. If she was harmed by a criminal act, her continuing care would be paid for for the crimnal injury compensation fund (ie NOT the local authority).

Its all about saving budgets, shades of what to come when the cuts really start to bite after May 2015.

would she be charged with murder?

nope.

but if it was born alive as a result and she then smothered it that would be murder.

So why is that vicar being charged with murder if the child was stillborn – surely stillborn means dead? (Again, I know we don’t know the facts on that case yet).

Peterfile do you think they said along the lines of ‘we think you have a case’? If they felt there was a chance then they’d make money.

If they were negligent in doing so then there would be repercussions. It doesn’t happen often in a case like this. Agree that there are probably quite a few scummy ambulance chasers who will say anything to get fees rolling in, but not for something like this. Car accident, aye. I’m being overly critical of the ambulance chasers though…there’s still a client behind it all chasing an “easy cash win”.

If they said we advice caution then the Solicitors don’t get fees/etc ongoing do they?

Lawyers generally get paid. You’re just instructed to do work on someone’s behalf. If they tell you to do stuff, they need to pay for it (normally). If you say “you’ve not got a chance of winning this” and they say “don’t care, i want my day in court”, you can proceed as normal. it’s their choice.

Your mightily trusting.

I know more lawyers than I know normal humans. It’s nowhere near as bad as people imagine. You only see/hear about the shit ones. I can honestly say, in the type of work I do, I’ve met a handful of lawyers who I consider have acted or would act seriously underhand. There’s obviously degrees of what the profession considers acceptable in every day business (that might shock joe punter), but most act ethically IMO. Not the naughty ambulance chasers though…different breed 🙂

There is ethics but there is also financial rewards (and pressure) to go ahead with a case using a clients money? After all, unless said-solicitors took it on on a no-win-no-fee basis can you trust their motives in such cases?

No-win-no-fee is on one hand, a wonderful vehicle that helps normal people get what they are entitled to legally. Having to pay a lawyer’s fees for a 3 year court case on a monthly basis, with no guarantee you’ll win, means that justice wouldn’t be accessible to the majority of people.

However, it also attracts a sub breed of lawyer and client who will action anything. Believe me, no one despises this more than the rest of the profession.

the vicar hasn;t been charged with anything.

Arrest on suspicion means they can ask questions that are relevant if it turns out the baby wasn’t still born following a post mortem.

If it was genuinely still born then it’ll be ‘concealing a birth’ they get charged with (possibly).

Hora, really just shut up. This court case was ruling on a criminal matter – namely whether an unborn child was criminally injured by their mother. You do not sue people in a criminal court. That would be a civil matter, which this is not.

It’s an all round tragic situation – your posts on this have a wiff of daily-mail-esque victim blaming.

So why is that vicar being charged with murder if the child was stillborn

Reading between the lines of that article I suspect that they’re not convinced it was stillborn.

bit of a murky area really. Abortion is a choice upto a certain gestation time (if that’s the correct terminology) and I think in the case of medical complications can be performed later, so saying FAS is criminal then that’s gonna contradict the abortion rules. Not sur eon the details of FAS and when during gestation it’s recognised as a factor, 1 person being able to have an abortion at 8 weeks but another being locked up/sued for drinking at 7weeks is obviously going to stir things up a bit.

It’s a complicated one all right, but with my ex-religious background (and associated prolife hangups) not one I’m not all that comfortable discussing, will be watching from the sidelines tho.

tomd holster your keyboard- you jumped on a quick-line opening forum post that also had alot of question marks in it. You know that means the poster is seeking info/isn’t sure.

The Vicar/Daughter- sufficient evidence found to charge? I imagine they said it was stillborn but custody questioning and the body examination point to it taking breath/living outside/smothered?

Lots of ^?? posted above in my post Tomd so you can keep the safety switched on on your keyboard for now.

the vicar hasn;t been charged with anything.

Fair enough, my mistake in using incorrect terminology, but he has been arrested.

All about budgets. One taxpayer funded organisation suing another. The only winners are the lawyers.

or, you know, the child with a severe developmental issue that would have been able to have better-funded care.

or, you know, the child with a severe developmental issue that would have been able to have better-funded care.

Why would it be better funded? Taxpayers paying either way. Or are you saying the current local authority care is sub-standard?

Well this is interesting. A mother clearly can do things a foetus when it’s still an inanimate blob of cells, but those things cause harm later in life when it’s a person.

If you abort a blob of cells this doesn’t happen. Seems to be a difference to me.

A baby might be a person, and a foetus not, but a foetus becomes a baby which is where the confusion arises.

I was hearing about this on the radio today, and as has been pointed out, this could present a whole shitload of ethical problems if the mother had been found to be criminally negligent.
However, I do think she was, having been warned a number of times her behaviour was risking her unborn baby’s health, and I really wish there was a way this vile woman could be held responsible and made to pay in some way.
But how would that be possible without then stirring up a hornets nest vís a woman’s right to a legal abortion?
Meanwhile her poor daughter has to suffer a lifetime of chronic ill-health as a result of her mother’s unbelievable selfishness.
Terribly sad.

this vile woman…unbelievable selfishness.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the woman involved hadn’t had some pretty bad things happen to her. no-one wins in these situations.

I imagine the woman had a bad start in life too so even though shes an ‘adult’ shes got the baggage and problems from her own childhood. I’ve heard stories about single mothers here in Manchester that add another grey hair to your head when you hear them. Child abuse when they were younger, became a mother in their early teens, multiple fathers, alcohol to deal with their youth etc etc.

Seen and heard the effects of FAS as MrsMC works in child protection and friends are looking to adopt a child with it.

Big concern is a floodgates issue. If you make FAS criminal, what about drugs, cigarettes, fast food diets.

Without knowing the mothers circumstances we can’t judge, but a lot of healthcare, Police and social work friends will jokingly say that there should be strict tests applied to anyone wanting to breed. Which most of them would probably fail as well.