34 thoughts on “Judgment – Barron and Healey vs Vines

  1. It’s outrageous that a Labour MP should take a common working man to court,
    Just for a few words.
    This is cowardly bullying The amount should be set aside to show that Labour Party
    does not persue ordinary workers for person gain


    • Kay Burley was not interviewing Caven as a “common working man”, but in his role – at that time – as “UKIP Group Leader RMBC and Councillor: Rawmarsh Ward”.
      See: http://www.ukiprotherham.com/our-team/

      I hope that I have made it clear on this blog and elsewhere that I am not happy with those two MPs over this; but most probably it has to be viewed as just collateral damage in their case against J. Collins MEP


      • To Reg Reader

        Can always rely upon you for a throwaway, irrelevant comment.

        However, hardly ‘collateral damage’ I would have thought. The Rotherham 2’s (Healey and Barron) legal costs must be far in excess of the £30k awarded. Reckon these must be into hundreds of thousands pounds using top QCs.

        Also doubt if Healey and Barron would be stumping up a bean to make these costs up or towards anything else come to that. In addition, they will have to make Mr Vines bankrupt to try and ‘chase the money’. How nice of them.

        Maybe they should be asked about how their legal case was funded? Did the Labour Party Insurers ‘cocoon’ them in order to pick up the tab? If so, the insurers will be non too pleased with such a derisory award. Unless perhaps there was also a ‘No Win No Fee’ arrangement set up by Shamaz and Steel? Maybe It is time for Healey should be upfront with their constituents and members.

        If it was, it is very unsettling as these arrangements are meant for the poorest in society ie people like Mr Vines and not two wealthy Labour luvvie MPs. So it could never be a level playing field if legal costs were through insurance and a ‘No Win No Fee’ facility set up as a double buffer.

        Serious questions should be asked as NWNF was clearly not designed for the indulgence of two wealthy Labour luvvies ie the ‘Rotherham 2’ MPs who would be perceived as abusing the system. Maybe you could ask them as you know them more than most?
        One thing is for sure the credibility and reputation of these the Rotherham 2 cannot get any worse.


        • I think ‘Coco the’ is surplus in your Username which, otherwise, appears entirely appropriate!

          All the comment (ill-informed, as it happens) about ways of funding legal action and defence is smokescreen.

          The reality is that, if you have a good case, you will find no problem in securing the necessary legal representation.

          However, if you don’t have a leg to stand on (an accurate summary of the judgement), you shouldn’t expect to find the massed ranks of lawyers to be marching to your support, unless you are willing to fund it.


        • Janet Green, it’s entirely relevant how a case is funded. A political party shouldn’t sue another or its members and these two wealthy individuals should not be using CFA (no win no fee) to spend hundreds of thousands against a pensioner with a councillor’s allowance (see Steel v UK referenced as CV submissions in the judgement). I’m surprised there’s no reference to a costs capping order. Rotherham has no reputation for defamation lawyers, especially ones who could tackle Steel & Shamash with Matrix Chambers at RCJ. It’s therefore no surprise that CV couldn’t get one.
          You clearly haven’t read the application for summary judgement made in 2015 and referred to in the award of damages in which Warby suggests there is a strong possibility of defending the defamation on the grounds of public interest (s.4 defamation act 2013). For some reason CV doesn’t seem to have done that and ended up submitting no defence at all. Based on the 2015 judgement, all CV had to do was ask the right lawyer and they would have jumped on the case straight away.


        • I am advised that your arguments “may be found to have some attraction to the customers in the Saloon Bar of The Dog and Duck, but are unlikely to be viewed with much merit by those on the Queen’s Bench in The Strand.”

          “Rotherham has no reputation for defamation lawyers” you say. That may or may not be the case, but Mr Vines’ bus-pass would have taken him, at no cost, to the big city next-door where he could have chosen from many.

          However, it is undoubtedly the case that all of them would have told him that he was in a hole and to stop digging himself deeper. I rather suspect from the course of events that Mr Vines did receive such advice but chose to plough his own furrow. [Are we to learn why he and Ms Collins parted company so quickly?]

          Your interpretation of Warby J is far too generous. In effect, all he was saying was “you haven’t brought me a single line of legitimate defence so far; on the grounds of ‘public interest’ would be legitimate and potentially arguable”, but he didn’t suggest that it had a strong possibility of success.

          The only lawyer who would ‘have jumped on the case right away’ would have been one with a generous pro-bono allowance to be committed urgently and who worshipped at the shrine of lost causes.

          Mr Vines is entirely the victim of his own actions.


        • Janet, next time I’m in the Dog & Duck you simply must introduce me to your advisor and we can exchange curricula vitarum. CMCs, budget hearings and costs capping orders are included in CPR for a reason.

          Vines’ actions in the course of this action show no sign of legal advice until the damages hearing where Warby J noted that there seemed to be evidence of some advice.

          My interpretation of Warby in 2015 is accurate. Please scrutinise my response more carefully and do not put words into my mouth. I did not conclude that Warby suggested defence under s.4 had a strong chance of success, only that it could be defended under s.4.

          Regardless of Mr Vines’ lack of common sense or good taste it seems entirely appropriate in a democratic society for a politician to openly criticise abject and enduring failure by MPs when an election is looming. Whatever I think of his comments, it is was undoubtedly obscene for the MPs to demand £90k each, manifestly excessive to receive £40k and, in my own opinion, pursuing this action in the courts rather than openly debating the issue and answering citizens’ concerns was a display of political cowardice and moral bankruptcy.


  2. For MK007….. No doubt instead of shame they will be getting ‘off’ on it….For a while…. Labour for the common working man ….In the immortal words of Jim Royle… my a..e….. I always thought if politicians couldn’t take the heat , they should get out of the kitchen…. Their pettiness to take the cut and thrust of politics may have destroyed a family and ruined a man….
    .This is ought to be a wakeup call for anyone standing for truth and speaking out….They’ll sue ya pants off ya…… Shame on em….
    The whistleblowers who tried to save the children were persecuted and hounded and lost their jobs for doing right….
    However one bright hope; conscience has a way of keeping one awake at night…. That is, if they have one……


    • Except a court has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it was NOT the truth. There’s a reason he did not get re-elected.

      ‘On the balance of probabilities’ is the civil court test, Rik.


      • Ah Defamation. Mmm. I am old enough to remember one Jeffrey Archer who won damages in a libel suit then went to jail for perjury. As far as I am concerned the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.


        • Well, if Messrs Barron and Healey have done an Archer, I would march them to Tyburn myself. But, as far as I can see, the fat lady has no reason to put aside time to look at the sheet music, let alone rehearse.


        • She hasn’t got out of bed yet, but if she does I’m happy to accompany you to Tyburn. Meantime I salute your faith if you can believe none of the participants in the 2005 Seminar spoke to the Mps. But then the late Christopher Hitchens did say that to call someone a person of faith is to say that they are prepared to believe all sorts of large claims on no evidence whatsoever


      • Where exactly was that “well-informed scrutiny” in the years 1997-2013?

        You may need to get your marching boots on since I notice there are references to discrepancies and irregularities in the MPs witness statements and election campaign funding.


        • On this issue, as the Jay Report makes clear, it was either absent or suppressed. And that was clearly unacceptable.

          However, what is being addressed here is Mr Vines’ claims to be the champion of determined and insightful questioning………..a claim that simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as evidence posted on previous threads confirms (eg his failure to attend consecutive Police and Crime Panels and then, when he did deign to attend, simply failed to ask the Police Commissioner a single question.)


        • Janet, Professor Jay’s remit did not cover the MPs. They have never faced scrutiny. Nor have they offered any intelligible explanation for their apparent lack of interest in Rotherham affairs during that time.
          Had they displayed any level of scrutiny in 16 years, insightful or otherwise, they would not be able to claim ignorance. The basis of the claim against CV is that they continued to show no interest after Norfolk, during the 6 months of Home Affairs Select Committee investigations or the nearly year long investigation by Jay. If they allowed themselves to remain ignorant during all that then I think it’s a pretty poor performance from elected representatives.
          Whatever CV’s failings as a councillor he did try at least once to raise the issue. It may not have been especially determined or insightful (the judgement suggests it was far from clear), but he tried. A politician shouldn’t be sued for doing their job of representing citizens’ views.
          Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that NONE of Rotherham’s politicians, at any level, seem to inspire a great deal of confidence?



      Sometimes you have to take a knock out punch to win a fight.

      The people of Rotherham should get behind Caven Vines and tell HIM the truth.
      Senior care officers across the country must have been aware of the extent of the CSE problem. They, in my opinion, must share problems and solutions.

      What would a reasonable man do ?

      1). Complain to the council
      2). If no result. Complain to those above the
      council. If nobody in Rotherham
      did this then my considered
      opinion is that the democratic process is dead in the water.

      I hope both MP’s will donate their “winnings” to CROP or the victims charities and if they don’t then the victims are victims again. Imagine £80,000 into a charity to prevent CSE. Absolutely a MUST.

      GO FOR IT SIR KEVIN and John


      • My information is that Healey will be donating his to a charity for Asian victims of domestic abuse. A worthy cause but a curious choice in the circus.


        • Trying to redeem himself I suppose Giles…….I am always suspect of people who give to charity and find the necessity to announce it……Looses it’s sincerity don’t you think….


    • The truth is out according to the high court. I am quite sure the judge used his power correctly. Beyond reasonable doubt is enough for the sensible people. Accept the decision and live with it. If accusations are made back them up with fact.


  3. Mr Vines has been left out in the cold by the wider UKIP community here. Surely someone could have advised him better in this matter. Legally the ‘ Rotherham 2’ have proved their ignorance to the whole wide world. This should not be forgotten.
    Perhaps they were both on holiday for a long time after the ‘honour killing’/racist murder of Laura Wilson in 2010, or perhaps they are incompetent and ignorant too?


  4. This is pure vindictiveness, the Labour Party should disown them, in the same way the NUM did to the Barron
    Dave Smith


  5. A judgement has been made and unless it is overturned by the Court of Appeal it will stand. People are entitled to think it a wrong decision if they wish. They are also free to choose which solicitors they use for their own business and if they choose other than those involved in this case that it their choice in a free market.


  6. And the animals looked at the pig and looked at the men and for as long as they looked they could see no difference…
    Not an exact quote
    Courtesy of George Orwell and his Animal Farm
    In what way are these two different from those the Labour Party was established to oppose.
    For them opposition must be silenced.
    To me they re plain bad b******ds


  7. Provided of course that one can afford a solicitor and Barrister which CV couldn’t nor could he obtain a CFA agreement backed by ATE Insurance with donations made to one MP by the very solicitors engaged by him.

    You can’t win in court without money. Victims can’t get legal aid to sue the perpetrators but the perpetrators get legal aid to fund their defence. Caven Vines is another victim of CSE. He stood up for the victims and got knocked down by the system. It should never have gone to court. I hope his book is a well received as others from Rotherham authors.


  8. Kevin Barron is a total waste of space as far as I am concerned. Why he even bothers with an office in Dinnington is beyond me. The lights are on, but nobody’s home as far as I am concerned.


  9. They spent 18 months and over £100k to get the best lawyers in London to pursue this. They don’t seem to have gone to similar lengths to combat CSE and support victims. The efforts they went to show they were able to do so much more over 16 years to find out about and tackle CSE in Rotherham if they had wanted to.
    The judge even said that Healey has a bad reputation when it comes to CSE that has nothing to do with CV – not exactly a full vindication. Especially when they were claiming £90k and CV didn’t submit a defence.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.