Douglas & Others V Hello! Magazine. Ltd.

Maureen Stevens V BMI (Battelle Memorial Institute) Maureen Stevens V BioPort Corp                             Maureen Stevens V ABC Corp, XYZ Corp

The widow of inhalation-anthrax victim Bob Stevens filed two lawsuits, alleging negligence by either the federal government or by a handful of laboratories that handle the anthrax bacteria that led to her husband's death. Attorneys representing Maureen Stevens filed lawsuits in both state and federal court. The federal lawsuit is against the U.S. government; the state lawsuit is against four companies, Battelle Memorial Institute, a Columbus, nonprofit research company with numerous U.S. military contracts, BioPort Corp, a Lansing Mich company that manufactures the only FDA-approved anthrax vaccine. The lawsuit also allows two other companies to be included, identifying them as "ABC Corp." and "XYZ Corp." The state and federal lawsuits outline the same arguments that negligence and bad practices by either the federal government or the companies led to someone getting a sample of Bacillus anthracis that was later mailed to American Media Inc. in Boca Raton, in the letter that Bob Stevens handled. Bob Stevens died Oct. 5, 2001, from inhalation anthrax. His was the first death in a wave of bioterrorism attacks that killed five people. West Palm Beach attorney Richard Schuler, who is representing Stevens, said the purpose of the lawsuits is simple: "To find out how this was done and who did it." The federal lawsuit comes after a $50 million claim filed in February against the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army. Since that claim wasn't settled, the federal lawsuit was filed, Schuler said. Maureen Stevens had until Oct. 5 to file a claim in state court, because that is when Florida's two-year statute of limitations for a wrongful-death lawsuit would have run out. In addition, filing the case in state court would ensure that a jury of Maureen Stevens' peers would consider the case. In federal court, the law requires a judge, not a jury, to consider the case since the legal action was filed against the federal government.

R V Harold Shipman

       Family doctor Harold Shipman murdered an elderly widow in his surgery then calmly carried on treating other patients, Jurors were told he even cracked a macabre joke to a policeman about erecting a plaque in his waiting room in memory of victim Ivy Lomas because she visited his surgery so often before her death. The GP claimed 63-year-old Mrs Lomas died from a heart attack when she had been killed by a lethal dose of morphine during a visit to his practice. It was claimed he made no attempt to call for help after she collapsed and did not even tell his receptionist there was anything wrong until after he had seen the other patients, details of nine out of 15 other patients Shipman allegedly killed were also outlined on day two of his murder trial at Preston Crown Court. Prosecutor Richard Henriques, QC said mother-of-two Mrs. Lomas was a "regular attender" to Shipman's one-man practice although none of her ailments were life threatening. He told the court of the doctor's "joke": "Quite remarkably, you may think, he was to say to a sergeant who called at the surgery after her death that he considered her such a nuisance he had laughingly considered having part of the seating area permanently reserved for her and mounting a plaque to the effect that the seat was permanently reserved for her." Mrs Lomas had long-standing problems with depression and anxiety and worried about her son Jack, 38, who had a history of psychiatric illness. On the day she died, May 29, 1997, she caught the bus to Shipman's surgery and arrived for a 4pm appointment 25 minutes early where she was met by receptionist Carol Chapman. Mrs. Chapman noted that she seemed "unusually quiet and off color" when she went into the doctor's room shortly before 4pm.  Mr Henriques said that some minutes later Shipman emerged "looking tired and flushed". The GP allegedly said in a loud voice: "I'm sorry about the wait. I have just had a problem with the ECG (electro cardiograph heart machine)." Mr Henriques added: "He said nothing further about Ivy Lomas. He continued by seeing three further patients before calling Mrs Chapman into his room. He told her: 'I put her on the ECG machine but there was nothing there.' "He said that Ivy Lomas had died despite his attempts at resuscitation. No attempt at any stage was made to call any form of assistance. The emergency services were never notified. "The decision to call the police was simply with a view to relations being traced and informed. "At no stage was Mrs Chapman made aware of any difficulties Mrs Lomas may have had until he had seen three other patients." The court heard that a police sergeant arrived at the surgery at 6pm and Shipman showed him into the treatment room where Mrs Lomas lay dead. She was fully clothed on the bed. The GP gave an account of the death which allegedly conflicted with the version he told Mrs Chapman. Mr Henriques said: "Shipman confided not only his views on Mrs Lomas as a former patient but he also stated that she had attended that day suffering from bronchial problems. "He said he had shown her to the examination room at the rear so she could rest on a bed while he treated the rest of his patients. "He continued by saying that when he returned to the room about 10 to 15 minutes later, he found her dead." Asked by the officer what he did next, Shipman allegedly replied: "Nothing." Mr Henriques said: "In his opinion she was beyond resuscitation therefore he made no effort to revive her. He decided not to call an ambulance." Shipman called Mrs Lomas's daughter Carol that night to discuss her mother's visit. Mr Henriques said: "He explained that he asked her to sit in an examination room while he attended briefly to another patient. "When he returned he found she was blue around the mouth and had died of a massive heart attack. "This version was inconsistent with Mrs Chapman's observations within the surgery. Significantly, he never asked for any action to be taken regarding any repair of the allegedly defective ECG machine." On the death certificate, Shipman cited coronary thrombosis, heart disease, smoking and chronic obstructive airway disease as the cause of death.

R V John Leslie

The man who found himself inadvertently named as the alleged "rapist" of Ulrika Jonsson faces the classical dilemma of anyone who is tarred with damaging allegations.  John Leslie could take the risk of suing for defamation, but could have even greater embarrassment as details of his relationships are dug over and the gamble as to outcome? Or should he maintain a dignified silence, inviting suspicion that he is frightened to risk a libel suit? Mark Stephens, head of media at Stephens Innocent, said that the man was in a "no-win" situation and the victim of the public's appetite for "celebrity sleaze". "We have a rather unusual set of circumstances in which the complainant herself has not named the man and refuses to do so - and even, after the alleged event, apparently did an interview with him...which one might think was surprising if this had occurred." The story, he said, had all the hallmarks of the rape allegations made against Neil and Christine Hamilton, which led to the couple's successfully suing for libel. Mr. Leslie had three options, he said. He could take the "watershed" option, and put his private life entirely in the public domain, taking questions and denying the allegations entirely. Alternatively he could sue for defamation, or, thirdly, he could do nothing and be accused of "running scared". "If he sued the television company (Five) and the presenter who let slip his name, as well as Associated Newspapers, he could have won. "But they will have already calculated that the increased circulation arising from this story will pay off any libel damages they may have to pay." The media group could have face problems defending a libel suit, as they would have to prove the truth of the allegation, perhaps without any help from Ms Jonsson, who said that she had no intention of naming her assailant, as well as establishing his identity as the assailant. On the other hand, three women came forward to make allegations of aggressive and unconventional sexual demands, and they would have been willing to give evidence against him in any libel suit. Mr. Leslie, too, faced problems in bringing any such action: first, the raking over of his private life and further exposure to the allegations. Secondly, he had somewhat weakened his position, one lawyer suggested that, by "hiding behind a cloak of anonymity when giving an interview to the Mirror", which, the lawyer said, "rather puts him on the back foot". Either way, lawyers agreed that Mr. Leslie was unlikely to take any action in the civil courts while there is the prospect of any criminal proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service said that in such cases it would decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute, after receiving a file from the police. The police in turn would not investigate without a complaint from Ms Jonsson. However, three alleged "victims" were reported to have made formal complaints to the police, although it was not clear if this was a specific allegation of rape. One newspaper lawyer said: "Mr. Leslie would have to wait for the outcome of any criminal moves. If there was a trial, and he was acquitted, this would give strength to his arm in any libel suit. "And he would not want to go the expense of a libel suit before finding out if he was going to be charged." A prosecution therefore looked less likely than a libel suit.