Markham Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 All three major newspapers on Cebu are carrying this story which reports that Ian Griffiths has instructed his lawyers to apply for International Writs at the High Court in London, Queen's Bench Division to be served on key public officials. What's interesting is, because those served are employed by the State, any damages awarded can be enforced through the London Embassy since they are International Writs. Were they to be normal writs, they would not be enforceable in this way. And as they have to be served through diplomatic channels, they are considerably more expensive. THOUGH he is out of the country, British national Ian Charles Griffiths isn't taking the homicide charges filed against him by Cebu prosecutors sitting down. Rameses Villagonzalo, the lawyer of Griffiths's Cebuana partner Bella Ruby Santos, said a firm of lawyers in London is processing the International Writs at the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England. He said the writs will be served on key public officials through diplomatic channels. Villagonzalo said they won't identify the persons who will receive the writs nor the amounts of damages sought against them. But he said they may include elected and appointed officials. Villagonzalo said the total damages Griffiths sought could exceed £10 million (P68 million). The lawyer said the allegations against the couple remain unsubstantiated. These include the alleged payments made to an officer of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in Central Visayas (CIDG-7) who allegedly tipped off Santos on the police's search for her whereabouts. Also included were accusations regarding Santos' offer of P500,000 to witnesses to recant their testimony. “If those making these allegations believed they would entice Ian Griffiths to travel to Cebu so that he could file libel and defamation cases against them, then they have made a complete miscalculation,” Villagonzalo said in a press release. Cebu Daily News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) All three major newspapers on Cebu are carrying this story which reports that Ian Griffiths has instructed his lawyers to apply for International Writs at the High Court in London, Queen's Bench Division to be served on key public officials. What's interesting is, because those served are employed by the State, any damages awarded can be enforced through the London Embassy since they are International Writs. Were they to be normal writs, they would not be enforceable in this way. And as they have to be served through diplomatic channels, they are considerably more expensive. I am just going to take a guess here, but if the Philippines cannot get the UK to allow Mr Griffiths to be extradited, then the same might apply to him getting paid even if he wins a lawsuit. Of course I have no idea of UK law and your quote says international, which makes it even more complicated, so if those people have intentionally outright lied about those issue, and cannot therefore prove what they released to the news, then they have damaged Mr Griffiths with their intentional lies and he should be entitled to damages, but I think we all can guess that in a poor country such as the Philippines, a person can easily be paid to say whatever anyone wants them to say, so I will guess that a witnesses will show up to prove those things did (supposedly) happened before any lawsuit will be won, so therefore it might end up a bad move IMHO if those witnesses cannot be proved to be lying. Backed into a corner, the Philippine govt then may have to file addition charges to back up their claims. Backing a person into a corner is never a good idea and rarely makes them give in, from my experience, but who am I, surely not Filipino, so what do I know about how they react. This is all a chess game, so while my heart goes out to Mr. Griffiths, if he and Santos are innocent, I find that backing a person with a face issue into a corner, could be a losing proposition. If it were me, then I would wait until they are cleared of the charges and then go on the attack. Sometimes the best defense is an offense but in the Philippines my guess is that will only cause more determination on the part of the Philippine govt to convict Santos, and quite possibly make a rift between the UK and the Philippines that some of us may end up paying for. I wish Griffiths luck and I hope I am wrong about this whole thing. I wish Mark had posted the links to all those newspapers so we could read it for ourselves. Add, I will search for the others. Edited November 3, 2011 by Mr. Lee add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) So members do not have to search for it, below is the others I found. Local officials may face suit in int’l court, Sun Star added number three Griffiths to take legal action on charges, Inquirer News Edited November 3, 2011 by Mr. Lee add links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Seems like a smoke screen to keep the attention off the actual murder case. If they actually intended to file a case and get money it would best be done after a trial and not guilty verdict, or if charges were to be dismissed like they were against the first couple that was wrongfully arrested and held in jail even after their alibi was confirmed. This kind of move on the part of the defense lawyers of Griffiths and Santos could end up hurting them more than helping them. Time will tell. If it were the lawyers of the wrongfully accused couple that have already been cleared and released then it would make more sense to me. Make me wonder now why they have not already done that, or maybe they have and it just has not been reported because they are already old news. Edited November 4, 2011 by Garpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted November 4, 2011 Author Posted November 4, 2011 I don't think it's a smoke screen at all. Due to the nature of the Writs and the persons being sued, the judgement(s) would, as I understand it, be enforceable against the Government and very possibly through its Embassy in London; he's obviously chosen his targets very carefully. But you know what, I don't think he's doing it just for the money, or even for the money: I think it's much more about clearing his and Bella's names and reputations. Consider this:Griffiths and his London Solicitors would by now know the extent of the PNP case against him and he may have received Counsel's advice that any request for his extradition is unlikely to succeed on evidential grounds. Although this may result in the Prosecutor having to drop the charges, as we saw with Berger, Griffiths will not be cleared of the crime. He needs a court to do that - and one in a justice system that's not influenced by non-legal influences (dreams, moral convictions, spirits and ghosts), weighs all evidence equally (doesn't automatically discount alibis) and with a strong and immutable tradition of preserving the presumption of innocence. If there's insufficient evidence against him to extradite him, then there's absolutely no chance of him being prosecuted in a Crown Court (criminal) for a murder committed whilst abroad.When these International Writs are served, there will be a fixed amount of time given to the Respondents (those served) to enter either an offer to settle, or a defence or a counter-claim. But to do either of these would require the Respondents engaging lawyers in London to act on their behalf since, even if they are lawyers here, they would not be recognised as, act as, lawyers in the UK - and they wouldn't know the procedures to be followed in any case. If they simply ignore and don't contest the Writs, Griffiths wins by default and the High Court Jury will simply be asked to determine the amounts of actual and punitive damages to award. (Libel and Defamation cases are really the only civil cases that are heard by a Jury in the UK). So whilst Griffiths might walk out of the High Court in the Strand with a cheque for £10 Million or more, he will still have the "brand" of being a suspected child murderer.What Griffiths wants is for the Respondents to enter a counter-claim for the "unlawful killing" of Ellah Joy which would then be dealt with under Tort Law rather than Criminal Law. That would be the only way that the Respondents could "try" Griffiths and attempt to save face. But since this would be a civil, rather than a criminal case, the Respondents would have to fund their side themselves - including flying-in and accommodating themselves and their witnesses. There is a small but significant twist: English Tort Law recognises that ordinary citizens can not be expected to investigate crime as thoroughly as the Police and therefore the burden of proof isn't quite as high as it would be for a criminal prosecution. So the Respondents might stand a better chance of winning their case - their counter-claim. A risk for Griffiths, yes, but obviously one he's prepared to take. But there's also the risk that the Respondents would lose and the damages awarded against them could be much, much higher - and, more importantly for Griffiths and Santos, their names would be cleared.If I'm right, this is a very clever tactical move by the Defence. Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Strange that it is Santos lawyer that is broadcasting this and not Griffiths. Since nobody has been named in the suit it is impossible to really say that they are any part of the Philippine Government and that his targets have been chosen very carefully. I would guess that a civil case like this will never go anywhere if it is actually ever filed. I would think that if it was ever heard it would not be until after the criminal case is over and done with. Really not enough information at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted November 5, 2011 Author Posted November 5, 2011 Strange that it is Santos lawyer that is broadcasting this and not Griffiths.It was actually: the lawyers in London and in the Philippines represent them both as a couple. However British lawyers do not routinely issue statements to the press. I would guess that a civil case like this will never go anywhere if it is actually ever filed.There'd be no point in filing it if that were true and Griffiths could save himself a huge amount in legal fees. I would think that if it was ever heard it would not be until after the criminal case is over and done with.The criminal case against whom? Marj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Strange that it is Santos lawyer that is broadcasting this and not Griffiths.It was actually: the lawyers in London and in the Philippines represent them both as a couple. However British lawyers do not routinely issue statements to the press. I would guess that a civil case like this will never go anywhere if it is actually ever filed.There'd be no point in filing it if that were true and Griffiths could save himself a huge amount in legal fees. I would think that if it was ever heard it would not be until after the criminal case is over and done with.The criminal case against whom? Marj The news article indicated that the case is being prepared. That is a long ways from being filed or accepted. It also indicated that the information was provided to them by Santos's lawyer not by any lawyers in the UK. I will wait and see if and when a case is actually filed and accepted by a court. No reason to sit and guess at things now. I would guess that any civil case would not go forward until after the criminal cases against Santos and Griffiths are over. It looks like Santos trial is already scheduled and depending on what happens there, maybe Griffiths will never end up going to trial or if she were convicted or decided to change her plea than I do not believe that I would want to be in his position. It is a smart tactic for Griffiths defense team to keep quiet and not talk to the media in my opinion. Santos's lawyer should take a lesson from them. But she needs to learn to be quiet also. It is never a good idea by the prosecution or the defense to try the case in the media. Edited November 5, 2011 by Garpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I wonder if it is possible for the victims family to file a civil wrongful death case against Griffiths and Santos? Something like what happened to OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal murder case but lost the civil case filed by the victims families. I would guess that civil cases can go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve & Myrlita Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I wonder if it is possible for the victims family to file a civil wrongful death case against Griffiths and Santos? Something like what happened to OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in the criminal murder case but lost the civil case filed by the victims families. I would guess that civil cases can go both ways.Yes that is true because criminal cases must pass reasonable doubt whereas civil only needs a preponderance of the evidence. That means evidence which is weighed against opposing evidence carries stronger likelihood of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts