Employment tribunal finds military lawyer's dismissal from RAF amounted to unlawful
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
more wiki additions
AM Mayhew was criticised in an employment tribunal case in October 2023 in which he was found to have offered "hollow and unconvincing evidence" in a claim by a serving military officer.[12]
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Oct 2023 at 15:42.
These trumpets that have been found guilty of lying under oath have effectively killed their own careers. They will no longer be able to give evidence as any barrister worth their salt will rip 'em up for ass paper.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
However, it does seem that the complainant is a bit of a PITA.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
meanwhile, the legal stuff
"Under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1998 (“ERA”) a potentially fair reason for dismissal is “some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held”. This is a catch-all category to deal with reasons which are not identified elsewhere in the ERA. One example of a potentially fair reason for dismissal under this category is a breakdown of trust and confidence."
"Under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1998 (“ERA”) a potentially fair reason for dismissal is “some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held”. This is a catch-all category to deal with reasons which are not identified elsewhere in the ERA. One example of a potentially fair reason for dismissal under this category is a breakdown of trust and confidence."
However, it does seem that the complainant is a bit of a PITA.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
So it might turn out that they may end up joining the person they conspired through lying to get shot off.
Trust in your colleagues is everything, but to have colleagues that are now known to have lied under oath, they surely must now be seen as a liability for the airforce.
Trust in your colleagues is everything, but to have colleagues that are now known to have lied under oath, they surely must now be seen as a liability for the airforce.
So it might turn out that they may end up joining the person they conspired through lying to get shot off.
Trust in your colleagues is everything, but to have colleagues that are now known to have lied under oath, they surely must now be seen as a liability for the airforce.
Trust in your colleagues is everything, but to have colleagues that are now known to have lied under oath, they surely must now be seen as a liability for the airforce.
Where`s `Legal-beagle` `pr00ne` when needed...?
However, it does seem that the complainant is a bit of a PITA.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
"Oh, I wasn't promoted, he was".
"Oh, I didn't get to Staff college" [I moaned to my Desk Officer on the same topic, but got there a year or so later].
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" springs to mind.
The turbulent priest analogy sits well with the subsequent response from ‘the system’, which is exactly what the ET judge called out.
The trouble is, it doesn't seem to kill their careers. The officer who 'misled' the Coroner in the Jon Bayliss case in November 2021, and the subject of ongoing police inquiries, was promoted to Air Rank. That is not to say he lied. He may not have known his briefing was a pack of lies. But it was related to THE crucial question, and the Coroner's finding was tainted by being misled. A simple Google search for the relevant MoD report revealed the truth. And a retired Air Marshal came forward to confirm it.
The following users liked this post:
Can anyone say whether there is a particular legal meaning of "untruth" that distinguishes it from "lie"? Is it that a "lie" is provably intentional and therefore evidence of perjury, while an "untruth" is not?
My guess would be if I tell you something is true while knowing it isn't. that would be a lie.
If I tell you something is true, and believe it to be true, but it proves to be false, that might be an untruth.
Borderline - if I tell you something is true, while not knowing if it is or isn't.
If I tell you something is true, and believe it to be true, but it proves to be false, that might be an untruth.
Borderline - if I tell you something is true, while not knowing if it is or isn't.
The ET papers are an interesting read to say the least.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...130-slash-2020
The amount of damages will be interesting just like this other case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...iams-v-mod.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...130-slash-2020
The amount of damages will be interesting just like this other case.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...iams-v-mod.pdf