Jump to content

Talk:Bruce Hyman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Reference that Sir Mark Potter Gave to Bruce Hyman

[edit]

The original complaint against Potter for giving Hyman a character reference was thrown out because the investigating panel thought it was OK for a friend to give a personal testimony. However the copy of the reference given to that panel was on plain paper, whereas the copy that was presented in court at Hyman's hearing was on Family Division headed paper, possibly belying the notion that it was just a personal reference from a friend. The complaint has been re-opened and its outcome is eagerly awaited by the UK Press. Here is the text of the reference that Potter gave to Hyman:

Potter's Statement as presented to the judge at Hyman's committal hearing

[edit]

The text is in the public domain, having been read out at Hyman's committal hearing

The notepaper is headed: "President of the Family Division / Sit Mark Potter / President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice"

Bindman & Partmers Solicitors 275 Grays Inn Road London WC1 X8QB

16 May 2007

Bruce Hyman

I have known Bruce Hyman well for some eight years. I first met him when I was invited to participate in a radio production on the workings of the legal system, produced by him as part of a BBC series in which a number of senior judges have appeared on the basis of their general respect for the series, the well-researched content of programmes produced by him and the complete trustworthiness' of treatment accorded by Bruce towards his contributors.

He subsequently gave some work experience in his production company to my son who was then at University and became a firm friend. Bruce and his family, to whom he is devoted and who are devoted to him, have shared holidays with my own family and my son is godfather to his youngest child.

When in his forties, Bruce turned to the law it was, I know, not only because of his high regard for the many distinguished lawyers, academics and judges whom he had met, but out of an intense interest in, and respect for, our legal system and a consequent desire to be a part of it. Indeed, that was the only reason for his leaving a highly successful and prosperous career in theatrical and radio production.

I recall a great feeling of satisfaction when, by coincidence, it was I, as Treasurer of his Inn of Court, who called Bruce Hyman to the bar. I considered he was well up to the challenge of his new career because of his high intelligence, extraordinary application, and what I (and, as I know, his circle of friends) have always regarded as his essential decency and integrity. He has also frequently demonstrated great generosity with his time and effort in giving help to anyone whom he knew to be in trouble.

Save that they originated in a desire to help a friend, the matters with which Bruce stands charged and to which he pleads guilty are so inconcistent with my knowledge of his personality and previous integrity that I can only ascribe them to some kind of brainstorm. I had not seen Bruce for some time before I learned of the trouble he was in, though I understood from my son that he appeared to be under great strain which we both assumed resulted from an excessive work load and the burdens and tensions involved in trying to build a new career while finding proper time to be with his family. I can only assume that what is self-evidently bizarre conduct in a man of his background and intelligence was the result of a breakdown in his mental health and all sense of judgement, as to which I understand his legal advisors are obtaining a report.

I know that he is now labouring under a total sense of shame and despair not only for what he has done, but at the shattering of a career he worked so hard to pursue and which I have no doubt would otherwise have been a success.

So far as I am concerned, he will remain a trusted friend.

Mark Potter

Potter's riposte about the reference appearing on official stationery

[edit]

I have had drawn to my attention a proposed article and a series of questions posed by Jamie Doward of The Observer Newspaper relating to my supply of a personal statement concerning the character of Bruce Hyman for use at his trial.

The allegation appears to be that my statement was supplied to the court on stationery bearing the name and title of my office and that, when this was the subject of an official complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints, I forwarded to that office a copy which was not so headed.

The position so far as I am concerned is as follows. In or about May 2007, I was approached by Bindmans to establish whether I was willing to supply a letter relating to Bruce Hyman’s character and I agreed to do so. I duly communicated the text of a proposed character reference to Bindmans by letter dated 16 May 2007 on paper which was indeed headed with the name and title of my office. At some stage later in the year of which I have no record but which I clearly recall I indicated to Bindmans in a telephone conversation that I wished to supply the statement for use at the trial in amended form and, in particular, that it should not bear the name and title of my office.

On 5 September 2007 I received a letter from Bindmans confirming their understanding that I wished to add to the statement and requesting me to let them have as soon as possible “a signed copy of your final reference” (emphasis added). Having considered the Judges’ Council Guide to Judicial Conduct and in particular paragraph 8.5 of the Code, I had decided that, while it would be inappropriate to give any reference in my official capacity, it was a case where it would not be fair to deprive Bruce Hyman of a reference I was otherwise prepared to give, simply because I was a judge.

I then rewrote the letter, with no reference to my office or position, as from my home address which appeared at the top of the letter. That letter was dated 12 September and was delivered to Bindmans upon that date, in respect of which I have an e-mail from Bindmans & Partners acknowledging receipt.

So far as I was aware, and as was my intention, it was that letter which was to be placed before the court and relied on by Bruce Hyman’s representatives in his defence.

If, as is suggested, there was placed before the judge a letter headed from my office, I can only assume it must have been my original letter of 16 May 2007 sent to Bindmans. Not only would that have been a serious error; it would have been contrary to my telephone conversation and correspondence with Bindmans.

In dealing with the complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints, I forwarded to that office a copy of the unheaded letter of 12 September 2007 as being that supplied by me for use in court and dealt with the complaint on the basis of its contents. I was wholly unaware (if it be the case) that any other letter had been placed before the judge.

I consider that I have been open and transparent about what I have done and why I have done it, and I have co-operated fully and at arm’s length with the investigation of the Office for Judicial Complaints.

Unsourced claims

[edit]

Removed unsourced claims. He appears nowhere on the Doughty Street Chambers website--check out the "Our People" page. The Above the Title 'About Us' page makes no mention of him,so cannot be cited. Mambazi 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is another Above the Title 'About Us' page. If no more he once was. Paul Beardsell 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To the anon who removed the Wikiproject banner

[edit]

Please leave it--it's not specific to Hyman because of the court case. It has lots of information on the state of the article eg that its a stub class article and the 'Biography of living persons' warning is standard and has to be adhered to, end of court case or not. 81.152.168.21 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get it right, OK?

[edit]

I have removed the following:

"...by faking a judgement, anonymously sending it to a father seeking contact with his child, and then attempting to have the father prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice when he subsequently presented this "fake" judgement in court"

Why? Because it is not accurate. He did not send the doc anonymously, he sent it in someone else's name. There is nothing to say he attempted to bring a prosecution. That the man involved would be prosecuted would have been foreseen by him, but the judge didn't need prompting, and was not so prompted.

Just get it right, OK? Paul Beardsell 10:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The document was fraudulently sent in another's name, thereby providing anonymity for the true author. I would agree that when an author uses a different name to publish then that is not the same as publishing anonymously, but when there is fraud involved, the fact that the motive was to mislead and, obviously, to remain anonymous, then it is not misleading or innaccutare to report summarily that the message was sent anonymously. 84.9.48.125 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's English. Anonymously means "without a name". Find another word for what you mean. There is one. Paul Beardsell 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit reasoning

[edit]

This link was to an outdated version of the wikinews page. If the reason for including the link was "text of the case", then it should be added to the latest version of the wikinews page. 86.136.27.106 20:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parsimonious people in wikinews took it out. It's the evidence in the case, received from a someone close to the case. There should be a link to it from the main article, as it's in the public interest. Could put it in wikileaks, but it's here (above) for the time being. I suppose one could argue that the more places it appears the better!. 84.9.49.13 23:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Stannard still involved in polemics?

[edit]

This diff [1] shows that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.49.13; is it too much to think that this diff [2] might indicate that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.48.66? Interesting, when he said he wouldn't edit on this page any more. And by the way, what he reverted in his anon IP incarnations wasn't vandalism, it was very clearly explained violations of WP:WLB, use of non-sourced material etc etc etc. 86.133.243.6 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who says what. It's what is said that is important. Anonymous editing is specifically allowed. Having said that: Unsourced unverifiable material will not be allowed and you will see I've removed it, again. Paul Beardsell 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All material reported in tabloid newspapers in OK, because paid journalists are invariably disinterested and provide infallible independently verified stories. When there are discrepancies between sources, all those sources should be considered unreliable and any reference to them or discussion about them removed without question. This is an invariable rule of wikipedia. Break it at your peril! Publicly available documents providing valid references and notification of their source, which can be checked, are also disallowed unless they have been published verbatim in tabloid newspapers or other sources for which people get paid for their contributions. It is always the case that unverified material is going to be a forgery and hence people should not allowed to read it in order to make up their own minds about whether it might true. It can't be, by definition and, in any event, truth is the least important consideration when editing here. References to old versions of articles or discussion pages are also not allowed and must be removed if they appear. Therefore, for example, you are not allowed to reference the statement possibly made by a particular contributor or by someone else regarding whether he or she did or didn't say that he would not contribute to this discussion page. You can hunt for it in the history of this page (though this would be an unwise use of your time) but you mustn't indicate where it is because this would be against wikipedia policy, wikipedia rules, wikipedia etiquette and common sense. Readers here just don't want to know things and editors don't want people to read things. It is editors' prerogative partially or entirely to block access to information whenever they feel they are right, and eithout question. The most effective editors always remember that the delete key is the most powerful key, and using it to remove other people's contributions gives invariably them more elation than any use of any other feature of this system. This is as things should be. 147.114.226.175 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brevity is the soul of polemics? You claim, paraphrasing, that your behaviour is justified because others delight in telling you off. Paul Beardsell 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]

There is some more discussion with a practising family law barrister about Hyman at http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/bruce-hyman/#comment-137 Matt Stan 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bruce Hyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Hyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Hyman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Hyman&oldid=1201617742"