WOMAN: Brian?
Brian.
David had a terrible night. He was screaming and screaming.
- You should have woken me. - I couldn't sleep.
I couldn't...
Why don't you go back to the doctor?
They stole my life!
Our life.
Come on, love, you need to sleep.
No, that doesn't stop the headaches.
I'll get David breakfast and take him to the park before school.
- I've let you both down, Lizzy. - Oh, no.
- I have. - No, come on.
It's not your fault, what they gave you.
We can still fight this, Brian.
Maybe it's time to give up.
BOY: Mum! Dad!
- I'll go. - No, it's OK.
Mum!
Dad!
All right, come on. Watch your steps.
Right. That's it.
One, two. Good boy.
Watch the road now.
OK?
We're going to go somewhere nice, David.
Somewhere very nice. All right? Here you are.
(PHONE RINGS)
(PHONE CONTINUES RINGING)
WOMAN: "For if the darkness and corruption
"leave a vestige of the thoughts that once I had,
"better by far you should forget and smile
"than that you should remember and be sad."
Thank you for coming, Stella.
Well, you know where I am.
I should have got up with him that morning.
Brian couldn't take it any more.
Neither of us could.
Not even David.
Taking away our legal aid like they did was the last straw.
We might still be able to get the drugs company into court.
Now, I don't want to give you any false hopes, but I won't give up.
I won't drop this. I can't.
Mr Justice Niven has ruled that the decision to withdraw funding
was reasonable.
He's like a mouthpiece for the Government and the drug companies.
This soldier - this acutely depressed soldier -
killing himself and his child must mean something.
Legal aid had encouraged them with funding,
and the other soldiers damaged by the vaccinations.
Then, inches away from court,
it was withdrawn on instructions from the Government.
Evidence of that?
They know these drugs cause neurological problems.
There's a yawning gap between what we know and can be proven.
John! How many more people's lives must be ruined
while these drug companies make bigger and bigger profits?
And the worst of it is that the Army mocks and reviles
Brian Meam and the others, telling them they're mad and mistaken.
Why didn't he go after the Army?
The Army argued successfully that the drugs weren't damaging,
and if they were, they wouldn't have had the means to tell, anyway.
All Brian Meam wanted was for someone to acknowledge
that the cocktail of vaccinations forced on him
might just have caused his problems.
And if they didn't?
He was formally fit and healthy, like the other soldiers were.
His medical records clearly state that.
What do you want me to do, Jo?
I'm hard against the wall.
There must be some way round this.
The issue of legal aid being withdrawn needs to be re-examined.
Well, I don't see how. Mr Justice Niven has ruled.
John, can't you see the injustice staring you in the face?
Mr Justice Niven is totally biased.
His whole family are research doctors.
His son lives in the same village as a lawyer from the Funding Review Committee.
They play tennis together!
Mr Justice Niven is a High Court judge of long standing.
Now, can you really substantiate these allegations?
At one time, you would have stormed the citadel.
Oh, don't start.
Broken down the barricades. All you needed was a whiff of injustice.
I am sorry to have bothered you.
- Coop! - Oh, I wasn't expecting you back.
See if Mr Justice Niven is still in the building, please. I'd like a word.
- Here, Judge, or in his room? - Just find him.
The decision of the Funding Review Committee
to withdraw the legal aid certificate was perfectly fair, John.
How could the Government or anyone else have manipulated things?
Weren't these soldiers perfectly normal before the vaccinations?
According to his medical record,
there was nothing to connect is condition causally to them.
Counsel for the claimant suggested that scientific evidence would soon be found -
seems a bizarre basis for continuing funding.
These cases bumped along for five years, Michael, fully funded.
And then moments before the doors of the High Court, funding is withdrawn.
The tests for legal aid are far more stringent now.
Part 15.3 of the Funding Code says that a certificate can be withdrawn
when it is unreasonable for funding to continue.
Without causal connection, it was unreasonable for them to continue.
15.3 also deals with the wider public interest. Surely there was one here.
In my view, it was addressed.
- How did this come your way? - I have some medical knowledge.
Oh.
I read medicine at Jesus before I did law.
Someone had to separate law from emotion.
There was an awful lot of emotion surrounding these cases.
How could there not be?
This was just one of a number of soldiers who committed suicide.
It was the absence of evidence that led me to my conclusion.
We mustn't unreasonably damage pharmaceutical companies
on the basis of hysteria.
They can't function with the prospect of lawsuits hanging over them.
Mistakes must sometimes be viewed tolerantly by the courts.
In a single case, perhaps, but surely not on this scale?
Nothing suggests a widespread problem.
Pharmaceutical companies are in the front line in the fight against bio-terrorism.
They were helping to protect these soldiers and everyone else.
We mustn't impede them
with unjustifiable actions.
Is Mrs Mills still tied up with that rag-bag of radicals?
Yes.
But that doesn't preclude the possibility of her clients being treated unfairly.
By Michael Niven? I doubt it.
Oh, there is a serious risk of bias.
His medical connections are well known.
Doesn't his son play tennis
with one of the lawyers on the Funding Review Committee?
No, no, no. That doesn't follow.
You must accept what you are, John.
A member of a very exclusive club.
It can't be that bad.
Well, I'm not suicidal. Not yet, anyway.
Everything is improved with another glass of wine.
- Cheers. - Thank you.
(GENIAL LAUGHTER)
We used to play this as kids.
I know another game.
I have a room here, Judge.
How did you know I was a judge?
You told me.
Come on.
(LIFT BELL RINGS)
- You're very naughty. - I haven't done anything yet.
Yet.
Here I am.
Am I very drunk, Judy?
- You're not drunk at all. - Why is everybody staring?
No-one is staring at you, Judge.
Yes, I am. I am far too drunk to be of any use to either of us.
Thanks for the offer.
John! Come back.
- What happened? - He said he was too drunk.
OK.
We'll catch him another time.
(BUZZER)
JO: Who is it?
- Jo, it's John. - John who?
How many Johns do you know?
What do you want, John?
To talk...
about Michael Niven's ruling.
- MAN: Colby. - Deed's shown up at Mrs Mills'.
To talk about the case?
It started that way.
It's more about sex now. Listen.
- JO: John. We shouldn't... - JOHN: Shouldn't what?
OK. So what happened? Hmm.
All right, Tom. Now, listen. I want a full transcript of everything said. Yeah?
All right. Speak to you later. Bye.
Deed is with the lawyer.
It appears amorous, but they are talking about the case.
- Well, that won't benefit us, will it? - It might, sir.
We should go full surveillance on Deed.
I can't procure a fully authorised tap on a High Court judge, Major.
That won't be necessary. We can handle it ourselves.
There is a lot at stake, Percy.
Shall we?
You gave me a turn, Judge.
I thought perhaps someone was here who shouldn't have been.
- Like who? - Oh, I don't know.
There are weird people creeping about from the DCA.
There was one here this morning who was doing an audit on equipment.
Spying on us, more likely.
I wondered why the door was locked.
Did you look at the internet plagiarism papers?
80,000 pages?! o, I told them I didn't want it.
I haven't got two years to spare.
The court manager hoped I'd persuade you. There's no-one else.
No. I'm not surprised. Come on!
You looking for something?
Yeah. Information on that soldier who killed himself and his child.
The papers said he was depressed.
Yes.
It looks like the family went through hell.
Judge?
See if you can find out ow the legal aid funding review
went to Mr Justice Niven, will you, please?
- OK. - And where Mrs Mills is this morning.
Have you explored every avenue on this denial of legal aid?
John, I know you don't like the company I keep,
but they are competent and concerned forjustice for the soldiers.
Have they found you a way round Mr Justice Niven?
Of course not. He was far too clever.
He's savaged the case and threatened them with costs
if they pressed for a full hearing in the Divisional Court.
Is there any new evidence?
All routes to the full court go through Mr Justice Niven, Sir John.
We can't revisit the decision to withdraw funding.
JOHN: Unless the conduct of the litigation was invalid.
Are you saying it was?
You have considered possible bias in view of his medical connections?
You know we have.
Yeah. We were told it helped is understanding of the case.
JOHN: And what about is son's relationship
with one of the lawyers on the funding committee?
That just takes the argument back to Niven.
Try and establish possible bias with the proceedings before him.
Then make an application before me in the Divisional Court,
if you can find anotherjudge.
JO: Well, where are we supposed to find one, at Woolworths?
No. We'll get through this somehow.
You're welcome.
Jo!
He's just made us the sort of offer we can't refuse.
There's too many complications. Believe me, it's not worth it.
If it gets us another day in court, who cares how we get it?
If I told you we had sex last night?
Well, you're both consenting.
Think about all those damaged soldiers.
What about Lizzy Meam?
She's lost her husband and her son as a result of those vaccinations.
And if we won and anyone found out about me and Deed?
Not only would we be appealed,
we would have hefty costs against us, and so would the soldiers.
First, we'd have to get to court.
Then get our funding. Then someone would have to find out.
Just talk to Lizzy Meam.
Can Deed review the previous judge's decision in this case?
I can't see how.
The case has been decided.
We spent a lot of money on intelligence, Neil, as you know.
Then you'll know the one thing Deed always does in his meddling
is operate within the rules.
The head of the DCA informs Percy Thrower that Deed cannot reopen
that which another High Court judge as closed. It's unconstitutional.
Were we to let it happen, we'd have judges reopening anything they chose.
And if he tries to look at the procedure, not the merits?
These vaccines are so very important for our protection, Neil.
The Government promised to ring-fence the pharmaceutical industry
and protect us against compensation claims.
We can't go on developing drugs against bio-terrorism agents
when our coffers are being sucked dry by obsessive claimants.
A development fund of 4 billion is not likely to see the pot running dry.
We'll deliver what we promised.
Our Civil Contingencies Amendment Bill will protect you
and other major pharmaceuticals from ever being sued.
Good.
It'll be law before Deed gets off the starting block.
I feel very bitter, Mrs Mills.
That first lot of solicitors we had were wicked.
They got an expert witness from the drug company's website!
We didn't know any better, but they must ave known he'd help them more than us.
If they'd have let us get to court, Brian and David would still be alive.
We'd have enough money to get proper help for Brian.
Why do the drugs company threaten everyone with costs like that?
Don't they have enough money?
Survival, profits, that's all that matters to them.
You somehow wish it would happen to some of them.
They used Brian and all the others as guinea pigs.
There is a chance that they could go after us again for costs,
if we got to court and lost.
I don't see any point now.
It won't bring Brian and David back.
Maybe they've found some peace at last.
I feel I've let you down, Lizzy.
It's weird.
I miss Brian's screaming.
I'd put up with anything to have him back.
It would start without warning
and end up with him banging his head against the wall.
What made it worse was not being able to help.
I lie in bed and listen for sounds of him roaming around the house unable to sleep,
praying...
that he and David aren't really...
Would they get the house if we lost, or what's not on the mortgage?
They might try.
Let them take it.
I don't think I want to be here any more.
I wouldn't want it costing you and Peter.
I'm not sure I can pay you ow there's no legal aid.
Peter's agreed to do it pro bono.
I can manage without a fee.
Lizzy, we could shove it right back at that pharmaceutical company,
warn them how we might come after them for big costs.
If we do get this started,
you know what'll happen if they discover that we've recently had sex.
JOHN: Is that all it was?
You could get one of the other advocates to lead.
- You know I can't. - You risk being disbarred.
In the face of such injustice, I don't see why I'd care.
JOHN: As much as I know a lot of people would like to get rid of me,
I can't be disbarred.
John, please try to get some otherjudges to take the application.
Who would you suggest?
Mimi!
The clerk in the list office was very shirty
about me getting the funding review papers.
- Did he give a reason? - No.
Just a load of old flannel.
Did you find out how it went to Michael Niven?
Someone bypassed the list office.
That's what put the clerk's nose out of joint.
Did Sir Michael ask for it?
He was chosen because of his medical background.
Both his sons and his daughter are doctors.
And he went to college at the same time
as Sir Ian Rochester and Sir Percy Thrower.
Interesting. But circumstantial.
He certainly gave the Government the response they wanted.
Did he?
Well, they're in partnership with the drugs companies nowadays.
Well, let's see when I approach Ian Rochester about the case.
That'll be fun.
Surely it's not acceptable to examine a brotherjudge in this way
now the Court of Appeal's ruled?
Not on this, it hasn't.
Presumably it thought the original decision was correct.
Bias on the part of Michael Niven, if there was any, would invalidate that.
I don't control the list. I can't jump a case listed for you
in the Divisional Court to the front of the queue.
If a court is free, and if I can find a judge, we can start right away.
Aren't you supposed to be at the Hague?
There isn't any work for me in the International Criminal Court.
The world's awash with international criminals.
Why did the original review go to Michael Niven?
The next most suitable judge, presumably.
You were at Cambridge together, weren't you?
He was ahead of me. I'm not sure we ever met there.
I do need a court, Ian.
If Mrs Cooper calls Court Services, I'm sure they'll find you one,
but you may be heading into dangerous waters with this.
Ah.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)
Mr Justice Niven, Judge.
Michael.
My clerk informs me you've asked for all the papers in the drugs funding review.
- I don't think we got them. - Why do you want them?
I've been asked to sit in the Divisional Court.
We're looking at your ruling
upholding the decision to withdraw funding from Brian Meam,
the soldier.
Who made this application?
The representatives are Radical Lawyers for Justice.
Ah.
The decision to withdraw was appropriate.
There is no causal link.
A lot of state funding was already spent looking for a link.
A hitherto healthy soldier was given a cocktail of drugs for his protection
and suffered neurological damage.
There was a history of ill health in his family.
Nothing took me to the drugs as cause.
Radical Lawyers claim your decision is unsustainable, Michael,
on account of your background association with medics.
My background...?!
I saw no reasonable cause.
One of your sons plays tennis with a lawyer who sat on the committee.
- How could that affect my judgement?! - That's what we'll look at.
This is not the sort of behaviour one expects from a brotherjudge.
We won't wear it, John.
JO: Why would Ian Rochester lie about being at Jesus with Michael Niven?
The information's so easily checked.
JOHN: They were there in '74.
They even rowed together briefly.
Could he be drawing you into this for some purpose?
- Are you getting paranoid? - With just cause.
Considering what's at stake for government and pharmaceutical companies.
Evidence?
Intuition. Not very reliable.
Neither is evidence sometimes.
I've got a feeling Sir Percy Thrower might provide a key.
Because they were at Cambridge together?
We keep coming back to the Home Office and its concern with bio-terrorism, right?
The pharmaceuticals are making vaccines against possible attacks.
The Army is providing them with guinea pigs. John, it's so unjust!
They did that with soldiers in the '50s, testing the effects of nuclear weapons.
One fight at a time.
I'd concentrate on Michael Niven's possible bias.
Do you want to eat?
JO: Not in the circumstances.
Circumstantially, eating's no different from having a drink.
- It's what happens afterwards. - Excuse me.
- How are you? - Have we met?
Ian Rochester's party.
Wrong party. Sorry.
You really don't let the grass grow under your feet, do you?
No.
What's all this?
Papers from the Judicial Review Mr Justice Niven conducted.
I'm looking at why the soldier's funding was withdrawn,
not writing a history of legal aid.
This is just a quarter of it!
That's one way of slowing us up. Where's my policeman?
- You banished him to the library. - I've got something for him to do.
Have you taken up smoking?
I want him to check that for fingerprints.
I think the owner might be following me.
- Why? - Don't tell Stephen.
- He'll smother me with protection. - But if they're following you?
Well, if we find out who, we might find out why.
Tell him it's urgent. Oh, Coop.
No more papers. I'll ask questions instead.
Yes.
Is Deed getting this case on?
I wish I could say he wasn't, Percy.
Caversham are feeling persecuted by him.
He's looking into the possibility of apparent bias on Mr Justice Niven's part.
A clever move.
It means he isn't seen to be trespassing on the substance of the litigation itself.
If the soldier's widow gets funding reinstated,
she'd pursue the pharmaceutical companies through the courts.
Some of our best lawyers are looking into
why Deed shouldn't re-examine the Niven ruling.
And if he does, Ian?
Does it matter if this soldier's widow gets to court?
Perhaps we owe her the truth.
- The fallout could be huge. - Caversham might up and quit Britain.
It's more than lost jobs.
They are the vanguard in the PM's fight against bio-terrorism.
We could speed up the Civil Contingencies Amendment Bill, Home Secretary.
Give them the protection they need.
Too much haste and we might be spotted.
Efforts are being made to hinder Deed, Home Secretary.
For once, Percy, I'd like to stop him legally.
That would really take him down a peg or two.
Judge...
...the court manager says there's no court available.
I do know that 5 and 27 are free.
- OK, grab one of those. - When are you sitting?
As soon as I can find anotherjudge.
I'll warn the other parties.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)
Is the judge in, Mrs Cooper?
Ah, come in, Stephen. Did you get a result on those fingerprints?
Well, I did get a response. I can't have the information.
- What's that mean? - I don't have enough authority.
Are there fingerprints on record?
There are, but I can't find out whose.
They could belong to a special informant, Judge,
or a member of the security services.
Ah.
Who would have the authority to tell me?
I don't know, Judge.
Perhaps my boss, Superintendent Gaghan.
OK. Bring him here.
Her. She's a her.
The court, Coop.
We wouldn't presume to withhold information from you.
Whose prints were on the cigarettes?
The unidentified prints, we assumed were yours.
The smudged prints, we couldn't identify.
Then whose record was denied to PC Ashurst?
They didn't relate to those on the cigarette packet, sir.
How do you know if you didn't identify them?
It was a mistake, Sir John.
Do you know what the penalties are for lying to a High Court judge?
No-one's lying to you, sir.
I asked if you knew what the penalties were.
Yes, sir.
If I find out that I'm being deceived, that person will go to prison.
And I don't care if it's the Commissioner of Police himself.
- Do I make myself clear? - Yes, Sir John.
Yes. Good. Well, I want that cigarette packet returned to my office.
He wants the cigarette packet back.
You didn't go up in the world.
The quality of my client has gone up.
How so?
All a lot more deserving than rapists and embezzlers.
You gave up the chance of being a judge for this?
- Yeah, I've no regrets. - Good.
We're planning on moving out of here.
Where to? A sub-basement?
We're going to make our chambers virtual.
That way we can spend more money on the client.
Where are you going to meet them, in the public library?
Most of my clients tend to be in custody.
Lizzy Meam isn't.
If you win that one, you'll have legions beating a path to your door.
No point being virtual then.
Yeah. Let's get to the court first.
Have you got a very good expert witness? Because you're going to need one.
Dr Peter Hiaasen.
He's a leading gastroenterologist in Miami.
JOHN: I thought these soldiers'problems were neurological.
JO: His thesis is that the problems start in the stomach.
- Can you afford to bring him over? - He's here already doing research.
Is there a possibility that you might be followed?
- What, stalked? - I'm serious.
Why, what's happened?
I want to move quickly. Can you put your people on notice?
Coop's already notified us.
John, we really do ave to keep our distance.
It's a bit late for that!
JOHN: Yeah. I'm on my way to meet Charlie.
CHARLIE: I miss Jo.
Everything in chambers seems somehow different now.
How?
I don't know. Everything's about the bottom line.
- You're not going to join her? - I don't have any work.
Why? You're a good advocate.
There are a lot of good advocates, Dad.
In case you hadn't noticed,
the Legal Services Commission are cutting back on criminal defence.
The Government doesn't value an independent bar.
They want a public defender system run along the lines of the CPS.
I might have to sign up.
Are you going to do this work for me?
A medical researcher would do the job faster and better.
Your legal mind will appreciate what's admissible.
- How urgent is it? - All I need is a court.
Well, you'd better feed me first.
Why else would I come all this way?
I'm hungry.
(ENGINE STARTS)
Hmm, hmm, yep, yep.
Yes, you can leave that with me.
Thank you. Bye.
You were a lot more polite in Sussex, Mr Harrison.
I do apologise, Sir John.
This court can't be used, sir.
- Where was the asbestos found? - In the roof, Sir John.
When was it found?
Quite recently. When a leak was being repaired.
It's been there for God knows how long.
Another day won't make any difference.
I'm afraid health and safety won't permit that, Sir John.
We'll use Court Number Five, Coop.
- Yes, Judge. - Not free, Sir John.
Mr Justice Niven is hearing an appeal there.
- Since when? - It started this morning.
Find me another court.
Is this what you did for promotion, Brian? What's going on?
Nothing, Rita.
Rita, could you get him to hear the internet copyright case?
Judge, there is a court free for the internet copyright case.
Now, you could take that case...
Two or more years of hell? o, thank you.
Yes, but you could open, order an adjournment for a technical reason,
and have the funding review on standby.
And afterwards, I'd still have the mind-numbing internet case.
I'm sure you could get out of it, Judge.
- Thanks, Coop. - Thank Mr Harrison.
Yes, Dr Mary Moon, please.
OPERATOR: Do you have an address?
Try Chiddingley, East Sussex. Sorry, I don't have a street.
Sorry, the only one listed is ex-directory.
OK. Thanks.
- (PHONE RINGS) - JOHN: Charlie.
Oh, Dad.
Well, you could at least try and sound a little less disappointed.
I thought it was Tom Cruise returning my call.
Tom who?
- Dad, he's a Hollywood movie star. - Charlie!
I'm on all these support sites for soldiers damaged by vaccinations.
It's really interesting stuff.
Yeah. I read some of them. A bit loony.
- Do you know who Dr Mary Moon is? - Should I?
She and Dr Rupert Dayvis caused a big scandal last year
when they went on record saying the cocktail of drugs soldiers are given
is causing all their mental and emotional problems.
Dr Dayvis killed himself by tying a rope around a tree and then his neck
and then driving away in his car.
Oh, yes. Didn't she accuse the pharmaceutical companies of killing him?
CHARLIE: Along with all the others with vested interests.
The internet sites insist that he was killed because of what they discovered.
- So why wasn't Dr Moon killed as well? - Don't know.
CHARLIE: I'll ask her if I can locate her.
Could I get her details through the court people?
JOHN: Well, you could ask Coop to try, but don't tell me about it.
Charlie, be careful around this, won't you?
Dad?
Well, there's a lot at stake for those companies. The government as well.
Isn't that being a bit paranoid?
Is that why I can't find anotherjudge to sit with me?
Have you asked Grandad?
I don't think that's very likely.
CHARLIE: Hey. In the words of the song, "The man in the gabardine mac is a spy."
I don't get paid to listen to that. That is off!
JOHN: It's the man in the gabardine suit that's the spy.
Here we are. The summons office got her details from the police.
CHARLIE: I'll remember that when I'm trying to locate a witness.
COOPER: Charlie, if your dad ever gets anotherjudge to hear this with him,
you didn't get that from me, OK?
With a bit more notice, my darling, I would have offered you coffee.
But you see, I'm sitting.
Why can't you help Dad with this case?
Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
I've known Michael Niven for a very long time.
He's a decent fellow.
But what if he's an unsuitable judge for reasons of apparent bias?
Like in Taylor and Laurence, 2003?
(HE LAUGHS)
That's rather good, clever girl.
Yes.
Lizzy, is this a good idea?
(BANGING ON DOOR)
All rise.
This threatens to be a very long-running case.
Mr McCartney is a litigant in person and may not be familiar with procedure.
I have done a lot of research on the internet, my lord.
Yes. I'm sure you have, Mr McCartney.
There are 87,000 pages on the internet relating to this case.
Now, I've calculated...
that if I read a page a minute for eight hours a day, every day,
I'd still need over half a year.
That isn't to say
that we won't deal diligently with the realities of this case.
Ideas that Mr McCartney posted on the internet were purportedly
exploited for commercial gain by Internet Raiders Incorporated.
So, two questions arise.
Did Mr McCartney's ideas constitute something that could be legally owned
and with copyright vested in him?
And, if so, did Internet Raiders Incorporated
wrongly appropriate those ideas for commercial gain?
- McCARTNEY: They did, sir. - That's what we're here to discover.
Mr Norwalk?
Might I enquire about the application we made under rule 34.13
for the court to issue a letter of request for an absent witness deposition?
The request was made to the Supreme Court in Buenos Aires.
Our witness, Mr Kray, is critical to the structure of our case.
The court in Argentina has not managed to track your intended deponent, Mr Norwalk.
Ah.
Mr McCartney, do you intend to make an opening address to the court?
I believe that's allowed, sir.
Yes, it is. I would just ask you to keep it short.
(DOORBELL RINGS)
Dr Moon?
- Do I know you? - No. Well, I'm doing some research.
- Mr Justice Deed is hearing a case... - I can't help you. I'm sorry.
You and Dr Dayvis discovered a connection
between the drugs and neurological damage to the soldiers.
There is no proof the drugs damaged them. You shouldn't be looking at this.
That wasn't Dr Dayvis's view.
- What is it you want? - Access to his papers.
I can't talk. Go away.
Well, if you change your mind, ere's my number.
The judge's number is on the back. He will take this to court.
He is wasting his time.
JOHN: Are you saying someone's threatened her?
CHARLIE: Their discovery did cause a lot of fuss in medical circles.
If they're right, the soldiers' cases would be watertight.
The internet sites claim Dr Dayvis held the key.
He and Dr Moon identified the specific damage as neural deficit.
Some sites scrupulously tracked the rise in neural deficit
and bowel disorders in soldiers following their revelations.
What is neural deficit?
Well, it's the... It's the permanent breaks in neural pathways.
They carry information to all parts of the body.
Any interruption stops proper functioning of all organisms.
What's not known is why some parts are affected and others not.
Inflammation of spinal nerve cells causes terrible pain.
Sufferers scream, bang their heads.
On their best days, they're just depressed.
Other vaccinated soldiers ave killed themselves too, Dad.
JOHN: And is there a background prevalence to these health problems?
CHARLIE: There's bound to be,
but nothing's shown up prior to the soldiers getting the vaccinations,
which were arguably experimental. Why is that?
You're thinking like counsel for the claimant, Charlie.
Look, Dad, you don't need to show that these drugs are causing the problem,
just that there is a significant possibility.
Well, I'm supposed to be concerned with the procedure in the Niven hearing.
The merits and whether Dr Moon is too scared to help should be for another day.
Dad, the merits were strong until Caversham got at all the experts.
If you're looking for bias, how bent is all this?
And they would say "irrational conspiracy theory".
No, you keep looking, Charlie.
McCARTHY: The idea behind the World Wide Web,
perhaps the most consequential known to mankind,
was the instant dissemination of information
in order to help free people of all colours and creeds,
not the theft of ideas.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Ideas are currency in this technology,
and the fact that they can go around the world and back in an instant
makes them more liable to theft.
Excuse me.
Did Dr Alexander Graham Bell have the idea for the phone first, or Marconi?
It's unlikely that they both had the same idea at exactly the same time.
Things simply moved more slowly in those days
and it only looked like they had the idea at the exact same time.
Now, the expressed intention of the inventor of the World Wide Web,
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, was to free up ideas and people.
He applied for no royalties or patents.
Let me take you back to 1969 in America...
Mr McCartney, is it your intention to set the record
for the longest opening in a civil action?
The record so far is 119 days.
I'm just trying to set out the facts and context as clearly as I can.
Yes, well, sometimes less is more.
If we'd had a jury, you'd have lost them by now.
Do you want me to stop?
Not if you think I don't have the point.
Now, what I'm going to do is adjourn now.
Think overnight about how much more you want me to know.
All rise.
Coop tells me you've got a problem with your client.
- Yeah, she's cracking up. - Is she ready to go?
Well, if you've got anotherjudge.
We'll get there.
John, is this going to happen?
Coop, warn the other parties in the Funding Review to stand by.
COOPER: Will I tell the Internet Raiders to stand down?
JOHN: If we do, we'll alert the world and his uncle.
(DOOR OPENS)
(CHARLIE SCREAMS)
Charlie ought to move from this ghastly area.
There's nothing wrong with the area, George.
Then why was she attacked?
(KNOCK ON DOOR)
Oh, Charlie!
What happened?
Were you hurt, darling?
I don't know what's more shocking, this or seeing my parents together.
It looks like an opportunistic burglary.
Looks like someone's got a grudge against my daughter.
It was probably Tom Cruise, because I stood him up.
- Is that a boyfriend, miss? - I think it was a joke.
I certainly hope so.
Oh, yeah, Tom Cruise.
- Did they get anything? - Hard to say. Not my TV or my iPod.
They must have missed them.
They took my laptop with all the research.
- Did you see them, Chas? - Only a blur, I'm afraid.
It's probably as well, darling.
Well, you can't stay here. Come home with me.
Yeah, the Home Secretary can provide round-the-clock protection.
- His name is Neil. - Yeah, I know his name.
Would you be able to come to the station some time and sign a statement, Charlie?
No, no, no. Get the CID onto this. Check for fingerprints.
It's just a burglary.
Yes, Sir John. Of course.
Why don't you call Supt Gaghan at Scotland Yard?
I'm sure she's bound to help(!)
Who's Supt Gaghan, Dad?
Someone who's as useless as the Home Secretary.
- Don't listen to him. - Any comment?
- It's a minor break-in. - Is law and order getting out of control?
If that's the line you're running.
There have been more drug-related robberies.
Best talk to the Home Secretary about that.
- What's going on, Dad? - I don't know, Chas.
Are Caversham coming after us?
They're the ones with the most to lose.
It could have been anyone.
There were two of them. They didn't take er iPod, or even her money.
They could've missed them.
Burglars don't miss a sixpence.
What was in your laptop?
The usual stuff.
Notes on neural deficit,
the papers from the internet speculating about the cause.
Nothing that can't be got with hours of research.
What about your bag?
There's no startling new evidence. It's all available.
- Cumulatively, it amounts to what? - Well, that depends.
How long the government and pharmaceutical companies
keep on saying the rise in neural deficit in these soldiers is coincidental.
Neil says it's due to better reporting by GPs.
He speaks on health as well now?
The families of those damaged soldiers aren't buying that, Mum.
Time you got a properjob, Chas.
I'll borrow a laptop.
I'll do the work in half the time.
Information freely available on the internet
is not information free to commercial enterprise.
Internet Raiders stole not one of my published ideas, but 27.
Three of these ideas, including my online data recovery software,
have made them a great deal of money - over 200 million.
With a modest 10$% royalty, they would owe me 20 million.
I do intend to recover what is rightfully mine,
and to this end, I will be calling 127 witnesses...
Yes, I saw your list, Mr McCartney.
It presages an even longer event than the McLibel trial.
The legal costs alone to the claimants in that case were over? 10,000,000.
Internet Raiders Incorporated must be quaking at the prospect.
Internet Raiders are a cash-rich company
which is being financially prejudiced by this action.
We would like to either see this spurious claim struck out
or at least set a reasonable time-frame of, say, one week?
I doubt if Mr McCartney
could read the qualifications of his witnesses in that time.
Well, then we respectfully request your lordship
utilises provision of the Civil Procedure, Rule 35.1,
and limits experts to... one per side.
Mr McCartney has listed in detail what ground his experts will cover.
No, what I am going to do now is adjourn
so that each of the parties can speak to the other.
Who knows, you might even reach a settlement. Talk.
I don't mind if it takes a week.
All rise.
I feel like I've escaped prison.
Mr McCartney wants is day in court, Judge.
He's had four already!
Sir Monty Everard sends his regrets.
He's another who can't sit with you.
Then I'll formally open proceedings on my own.
Warn the other parties.
Do you think you should, Judge?
I'm not sure we can stop Deed.
It's not lawful, him sitting alone, is it?
Probably not.
Then if he does, it'll be struck down.
Nothing encourages me to think I'd win.
I don't want to spend a night in jail for contempt.
Is it contempt if more asbestos were found?
- More asbestos? - That's what Brian Harrison told me.
I want to see for myself.
This court was perfectly usable two hours ago, Mr Harrison.
I know, Sir John. Asbestos.
- Show it to me. - I daren't, Sir John.
Like some wild dangerous beast, is it, ready to spring out?
Sir John?
If there was so much asbestos,
half their lordships would be down with mesothelioma.
I can't breach ealth and safety regulations.
Find me an alternative court or we'll hear it in the corridor.
There isn't a court!
You've got 30 minutes or we'll hear it in the corridor.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Brian.
I'm only following orders, Rita.
That's even more shameful.
My lord, I urge you not to hear this case in the corridor.
The court is anywhere a High Court judge decides to preside over a lawful trial.
Ajudge sitting alone in the Divisional Court of the High Court
is not lawful, my lord.
Yes, I am aware of Section 66 of the Supreme Court Act, Ian.
My lord, if you were to ear this case in the corridor,
it would look like transitional justice in an emerging democracy.
Yes. You're right.
It should be heard in a court.
And then this point is further developed
in the respondent's skeleton argument, my lord, at paragraph nine.
Your lordship will see that the case cited there
is Charles and the Queen, the Privy Council...
Sir Joseph, Mr Justice Deed would like to see you in his chambers urgently.
Yes, well, this is, uh... this is all very interesting,
but I'll need to study these papers in detail.
All rise.
Does this case have anything to do with Charlie's mugging?
Yes, I believe so.
Why isn't Haughton doing something?
The Home Secretary's too busy protecting the interests of the drug companies.
Joe, will you sit with me?
You can use my court, but I don't think I can have anything to do with it.
You cannot lawfully sit on your own.
It undermines the rule of law and brings the bench into disrepute.
Regardless, I'm going to take a bold step forjustice and sit alone.
If you won't join me, any ruling I make will be invalid
and I shall have been defeated.
- But then so too will justice. - John!
John, don't be such a bloody fool!