PRESS ROUND-UP

Sacked solicitor tells of anguish over death of baby

The case of Harriet Davies-Taheri, the solicitor who 'blamed her bosses for the death of her baby' (Daily Mail, 29 March) provided the media with a diversion from the war in Iraq.

A 'heartbroken' (Sun, 26 March) Ms Davies-Taheri told an employment tribunal last week that her son was born four months prematurely eight days after she was sacked from the Sheffield office of Maidenhead firm Proddow Mackay.

She claimed that 'stress and anxiety had sparked the life-threatening illness pre-eclampsia which caused her baby's death' (Daily Mail).

Although Proddow Mackay disputed this, claiming she was fired for gross misconduct, after last week's hearing, an employment tribunal in Sheffield ruled that Ms Davies-Taheri was sacked because she was pregnant.

Ms Davies-Taheri, who now stands to win up to 100,000 compensation, maintained in 'an exclusive' interview with the Express that her 'battle for justice' was fought 'first and foremost for my baby Benjamin - I simply could not have lived with myself if I had not fought back on his behalf'(31 March).

Elsewhere, a battle was raging on the Financial Times' letters pages following last week's call by the Law Society for lawyers to dispense with some of their traditional jargon.

Solicitor Jennifer Margrave claimed that 'there is a reason these terms are used - they have been tried and tested in the courts, and all lawyers know what they mean' (25 March).

She added that 'in most cases, the definitions given...

for legal terms were twice or three times as long as the terms themselves.'

However, this did not go down well with John Lister of the Plain English Campaign.

'Where legal terms must remain, we have a right to an explanation...

how are we to trust anyone who cannot explain clearly to us what they are doing in our name?' he demanded (26 March).

While admitting that 'some legal phrases have clearly defined legal meanings', he also contended that 'this argument is often exaggerated - how quiet our courts would be if everyone had the same interpretation of the term "reasonable".'

The events going on in the wider world got a look-in in the legal pages this week, with David McIntosh, the Society's immediate past president and senior partner of City firm Davies Arnold Cooper, writing in the Times that 'claimant solicitors are preparing for a deluge of work after the war' (25 March).

Although in the past compensation has not been forthcoming for the injured or dependants of those killed, things look to be changing.

'Complaints about inadequate equipment - including faulty guns, the last-minute sandproofing of tanks and possibly inadequate protective clothing - have already been aired,' he warned, before asking: 'Who will be in the sights of dependants and injured?' The Ministry of Defence, of course, has Crown immunity, but 'there can be little doubt, given the continuing creep of US-style compensation culture in the UK, that suppliers and manufacturers are likely to find themselves in the firing line without the benefit of the Crown immunity defence.' The phrase 'caveat emptor' will, Mr McIntosh predicted, soon become 'caveat vendor'.

And finally, it is good to see in these troubled times that some things never change.

The Mail on Sunday continued this week with its favourite pastime, seeing changes to immigration law as a way to have a pop at lawyers.

'New government powers will make it harder for greedy lawyers to jump on the human rights gravy train and spin out asylum appeals which cost taxpayers millions,' it declared (30 March).

David Blunkett's proposals to end the right of appeal in the UK for asylum seekers who have already appealed elsewhere in Europe, will, it reported as an afterthought, 'also stop bogus asylum seekers delaying their expulsion from Britain'.

You might almost have thought that this was the main point of the changes.

Victoria MacCallum