Dear Ms McIntyre,
Thank you for your confirmation of the arrangements for filing the draft Order.
I write on a related matter of considerable concern to my clients. It is that, following their agreement to your client’s proposal for an extension of time to enable a dialogue to take place about whether this claim might be settled, they became aware of a blog entry posted by Ms van de Gaag, the text of which is reproduced below.
The blog is objectionable on a number of levels. It presents the HPC’s arguments highly selectively; nothing is said of its contention that my clients’ case was unarguable, which was roundly rejected. It does not report the Judge’s actual decision on delay which was that there had been none and, in any event, that my client’s and others had been actively misled by the HPC about what was, and what was not, under consideration. It trivialises a case which the Judge described as “important” as a technical dispute about “points of law”. Fundamental questions about whether the HPC exceeded its legal powers are characterised as ephemera (“who did what and when and according to which process or guidance or directive”). It positively asserts that my clients’ complaints should be directed at the government, notwithstanding that very argument being rejected by the Judge. Last, it inaccurately describes progress in working relationships and development of standards, when the reality is that views on these matters remain polarized. One of the reasons for that is that the PLG has a narrow membership and has taken no meaningful steps to engage with those professionals who hold different views.
Had my clients been aware of the blog at the time they were considering your proposal for an extension of time, it is very unlikely they would have agreed to one. That is because, despite the nod to seeking common ground, the remainder of its contents suggest that the HPC’s position is entrenched and defiant (e.g. “[w]e can and probably will continue to argue”) rather than constructive and conciliatory.
My clients have no intention of responding in kind. They would like the blog removed from the HPC’s website immediately, however. When considering whether to not to agree to that request, your client should bear in mind the impact that refusing to agree to this reasonable request will have on the prospects for success in negotiations which, I remind you, it has sought.
I hope to receive confirmation the blog has been removed by close of business today.
Yours sincerely,
John Halford
Bindmans LLP
Thursday, 23 December 2010
UKCP Statement following Judicial Review Permission Hearing
Below I have reproduced a report that has been widely circulated both within and outside the UKCP. I have posted it here for information of those who might not get to see it via the usual channels. Also, if you click the title of this blog you will find it linked to a statement by UKCP Chair and CEO.
REPORT FROM LEGALLY QUALIFIED LAY TRUSTEE OF UKCP TO THE BOARD
Having just returned from the preliminary hearing, I would like to provide the Board with a brief report.
As you can imagine, there was a great deal of detailed discussion as to matters of fact and law but it boiled down to the following: the judge declared that the claimants (AGIP, AIP, Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research, College of Psychoanalysts – UK, Guild of Psychotherapists and The Philadelphia Association) were entitled to proceed with their application for judicial review of the conduct of HPC in making recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health regarding the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. This is what HPC were seeking to avert at today’s hearing.
Specifically, the judge rejected HPC’s arguments that the claimants were too late to lodge an action for judicial review and ruled that the claimants were entitled to proceed with their application for judicial review on all the grounds they had claimed. He suggested that there was some common ground and that the parties might meet.
There was considerable and detailed discussion about whether in acting as it did, HPC was simply conducting a feasibility study to assess its capacity to regulate psychotherapists and counsellors, as opposed to undertaking a broader exercise of making recommendations about statutory regulation of those professions. The judge concluded that the claimants were entitled to believe that it was the latter and not the former (despite HPC’s argument to the contrary) in view of the evidence presented to the court.
In a move I understand to be unusual in cases of this kind, the judge ruled that HPC must pay 1/3 of the claimants’ costs of today’s hearing.
From my observations of the hearing, the salient points were:
None of HPC’s arguments succeeded on the day;
Having heard the claimants’ submissions, the judge informed counsel for HPC that he was looking for some “knockout points”, which I took to mean he thought the claimants had made a convincing case. Having heard HPC’s case, he still ruled in favour of the claimants;
Unusually, a costs award was made in favour of the claimants so HPC is having to pick up some of the claimants’ costs.
REPORT FROM LEGALLY QUALIFIED LAY TRUSTEE OF UKCP TO THE BOARD
Having just returned from the preliminary hearing, I would like to provide the Board with a brief report.
As you can imagine, there was a great deal of detailed discussion as to matters of fact and law but it boiled down to the following: the judge declared that the claimants (AGIP, AIP, Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research, College of Psychoanalysts – UK, Guild of Psychotherapists and The Philadelphia Association) were entitled to proceed with their application for judicial review of the conduct of HPC in making recommendations to the Secretary of State for Health regarding the regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors. This is what HPC were seeking to avert at today’s hearing.
Specifically, the judge rejected HPC’s arguments that the claimants were too late to lodge an action for judicial review and ruled that the claimants were entitled to proceed with their application for judicial review on all the grounds they had claimed. He suggested that there was some common ground and that the parties might meet.
There was considerable and detailed discussion about whether in acting as it did, HPC was simply conducting a feasibility study to assess its capacity to regulate psychotherapists and counsellors, as opposed to undertaking a broader exercise of making recommendations about statutory regulation of those professions. The judge concluded that the claimants were entitled to believe that it was the latter and not the former (despite HPC’s argument to the contrary) in view of the evidence presented to the court.
In a move I understand to be unusual in cases of this kind, the judge ruled that HPC must pay 1/3 of the claimants’ costs of today’s hearing.
From my observations of the hearing, the salient points were:
None of HPC’s arguments succeeded on the day;
Having heard the claimants’ submissions, the judge informed counsel for HPC that he was looking for some “knockout points”, which I took to mean he thought the claimants had made a convincing case. Having heard HPC’s case, he still ruled in favour of the claimants;
Unusually, a costs award was made in favour of the claimants so HPC is having to pick up some of the claimants’ costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
