Pesticide Lawsuits and
government control in the UK
Click Here to Add Comment
Subject: UK lawsuits....................
Date:
Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:09:19 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker,
I thought you might like to read an e-mail I just received:
Dear Steve,
Very little publicity about this in the
UK
but it seems that the chemical companies and Government have control over the
outcome of all legal actions in this country.
A few years back lawyers told me that there were some 600
legal actions pending in the
UK
which involved organophosphorus compounds such as Sheep Dip and grain store
chemicals.
Then the word was that they had been instructed to
"lose" as many as possible and the numbers fell to about 25. The
defendants then used the low numbers as a means to argue against the other cases
going forward but they also persuaded the Courts that certain medical opinion
should not be permitted because the opinions based on sound science were not
given by a "sufficiently qualified expert". It seemed that the court
was insisting on a scientific level of proof instead of the "Balance of
Probabilities" rules in force for civil actions.
For some crazy reason the plaintiff's own lawyers, who were
it seems given total control over the fate of all the cases, claimed that they
could not use experts from outside the
UK
as it "would demonstrate the weakness of the cases". This when the
defence were some of the most powerful multi-national chemical companies who
used their own overseas expertise. The lawyers also had links to Government. So
the plaintiffs lawyer's withheld supporting evidence from the court by the due
dates and wrote to the plaintiffs asking them to sign away their right to take
legal actions on OPs for the rest of their lives or face the full costs of the
defence. Some must have signed as only about a dozen cases remained when the
judge decided that the cases against the companies should not continue even
though all but one of the employer negligence cases could go forward.
Without supporting lawyers most of the cases moved to a new
firm who promised to give their full backing to winning the legal actions. This
firm also failed to put the supporting evidence before the judge and like the
last they attempted to force the plaintiffs to seek expert opinion from
scientists linked to the defence. Some plaintiffs even paid large sums of money
for experts of their own choice in order to avoid the obvious trap. All to no
avail. Even evidence proving that the defence had misled the court both on the
science and on factual information was ignored by lawyers and judges alike. A
new judge ruled that all the remaining employer negligence cases should be
struck out but that the company cases could continue but within a week with no
further evidence he appears to have changed his mind and struck out the lot,
singling out one case in particular banning any chance of appeal. The lawyers
failed to notify their clients of appeal dates and procedures and now the entire
group action is at an end - despite the public health interests involved.
Out of some 600 cases on the books they could not find one
strong enough to follow in Mr Hill's footsteps through the Court. The conclusion
drawn is that the Hill v Tomkins case was intended to fail and when he won the
game was up and so they had to pull out all the stops to prevent damaging
further actions.
The lawyers claim that the Legal Aid Board is to blame
because it refused sufficient funding to enable them to obtain sufficient
evidence but that is unlikely to be true, even though the Government obviously
has influence over the Board. It would seem that the cases have been tried out
of court without the full evidence being available and with known science
withheld from the plaintiffs. It would also seem that British Justice has proven
incapable of dealing with the complex medical and chemical science involved in
pesticide cases and that some individuals involved do not care a fig about
Justice or the rule of law.
All the best, Richard.
Well Mr. Helliker, how do
you like the concept of "Justice or legalized mayhem" for all.
Do you care a fig about the people? There
are many safe and effective alternatives that do not harm and/or kill innocent
people. When will they be
"legal" (in your opinion)?
Respectfully,
Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
with "subscribe" in the subject line.
TOP