Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, the lawyer who was the focus of yesterday’s post, has issued a rebuttal to comments in George Monbiot’s Guardian article of Tuesday 6 March 2007 (article http://tinyurl.com/3crmy7). An extract of the letter is appended below but the full letter is available (http://tinyurl.com/3y9hqw).
“Our involvement in the harassment act concerned the drafting and introduction of a private member's bill against stalking in 1996. Our aim was to assist in bringing in legislation to prohibit stalking. Our aim was defeated by parliament, which determined and decided to outlaw harassment.
Various jurisprudential concepts from the stalking bill were incorporated into the act, but it was drafted in far wider terms. At the time we advised those we assisted in the parliamentary process that the law against harassment was far more outreaching than our original intention. We are fully entitled to use existing legislation to seek to protect our clients' interests and there is no conflict of interest.”
On his practice’s website the following statement is made as regards their involvement in the harassment act:
Lawson-Cruttenden “is the leading practice in the areas of "harassment" and "stalking" and assisted in the drafting of the "Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”
Perhaps I’m wrong but I feel there is a difference in emphasis between these two extracts. The rebuttal letter seems to downplay their involvement whereas the website implies an increased role.
I wonder why that should be.
Perhaps I have read more into these extracts than is really there.
Silly old me!