Return to Views on Terrorism
3 Brandfield Street Edinburgh EH3 8AS Dated: October 14th 2003 Peter Smith Esq Clerk to Hon Mr Justice Laddie The Patent Court The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL Cintec International Limited v John Parkes and Martin Frost Dear Mr Smith,   Please will you convey the letter below to Mr Justice Laddie. You should have already received the contents by facsimile and hopefully this will avoid the proposed postal action in London. To prevent a miscarriage of justice re costs it is appropriate that I write to you. My name is David Liddle. I have no legal training but as a photo-journalist working for a major UK Sunday newspaper until the mid 1980's I have had limited experience to some aspects of the UK legal system. I am a business colleague and friend of John H Parkes, Martin Frost, Professor Stephen Salter, Alan Halliday, and associates. I express no opinion on the substance of Mr Justice Laddie's judgment but believe he has misconstrued the role of Martin Frost. For personal historical reasons as well as being a sleeping business partner, Martin Frost felt obligated to Mr Parkes and agreed to act as a litigant in person. I had strongly advised Mr Parkes that he should be accompanied by Mr Frost on the initial visit to the Cintec's office as I felt that Mr Frost's experience of business as well as his legal knowledge would be highly advantageous to Mr Parkes in any attempt to seek a deal with Cintec. My advice then was not followed. I attended the hearing before Mr Justice Jacob and recall that he bluntly advised Mr Parkes and Mr Frost that they had little prospect of success "if you base your case on layflat plastic tubing". My recollection of that hearing in front of Mr Justice Jacob differs from what I have read in the transcripts of the recent case. There appears to have been some confusion over the interpretation of dates for a proposed hearing and that both Mr Howe and Mr Justice Laddie may be in error. I understood that a December trial date was never offered by Mr Justice Jacob.  Cintec's request was for a speedy trial date and that, prior to any discussion, Mr Justice Jacob voiced his wish to grant this. Before the court rose for lunch Martin Frost said he would be unable to meet September and/or October due to other probable court commitments in the Inner House of the Court of Session, hence the suggestion of August. Mr Justice Jacob said he would check the September date with Lord Gill, Lord Chief Justice Clerk of the Court of Session In Edinburgh, After lunch the hearing resumed and Mr Justice Jacob told Mr Frost that,  following a telephone call he made to Lord Gill, Mr Frost's Scottish proceedings would not clash. Following the hearing Mr Parkes and I waited outside the court while Mr Frost spoke with Cintec's counsel in the body of the court. Mr Radford had been unable to get to court that day and Mr Howe apologised  to Mr Justice Jacob, for his non appearance, as strictly speaking, Howe would not be able to speak without his instructing solicitor being present. After a while Mr Parkes re-entered the court and the meeting then appeared to end. I do not know what was being discussed but I believe that Martin Frost had hoped to have later met with Mr Radford so a settlement might be discussed. But this did not happen that day. Mr Parkes and Mr Frost were very tired, having had little sleep following their drive south to attend the proceedings. As I had arrived in London the previous day to deliver papers to the Court and BPE,  I changed my plans to return by rail and drove them back to Scotland. There was little conversation on the trip. From conversations with Mr Frost I later understood that tentative steps and proposals for settlements were in fact discussed on several subsequent occasions following approaches from both sides. The last occuring on the the Tuesday evening prior to the trial when it was proposed that the sides 'walk away' from any further confrontation and agree on costs. As the junior partner in Dellex, Martin Frost, unlike counsel or a practising lawyer, was not able to resign should he disagree with Mr Parkes.  To the contrary corporate responsibility (as the junior partner and litigant in person) to Dellex obliged Mr Frost to continue with this case. Regrettably neither he nor any of us was able to finally dissuade Mr Parkes from his entrenched position against Cintec, and the trial commenced. I believe that Martin Frost had sought and obtained excellent legal advice. As a result John Parkes was repeatedly advised by Mr Frost, and by many of his friends,  that there was no chance  of success re the threats action, very little prospect regarding infringement but that such infringement prospects greatly improved upon the introduction of the Barrett patent.   Control of the Barrett patent now effectively lies with the embryo Dellex International Plc. Against the wish of the majority Mr John H Parkes refused to transfer his patents to the Plc until after he had won this legal action. I am not aware that Martin Frost has accused Mr Radford of professional misconduct; privately Martin Frost has spoken very highly of Cintec's legal team though he has expressed some irritation at Mr Radford's tactics and 'gamesmanship'. I suspect that some will be 'borrowed' for other of Mr Frost's proceedings Mr Frost lives some distance from Mr Parkes and I thought that a duplicate court bundle had been asked for. and promised, at the hearing before Mr Justice Jacob; in the event this did not arrive. Mr Parkes natural desire to look at and understand the documents in the bundle first, meant that Martin Frost was unable to fully review the material and assess its significance until late in the day. Having attempted (and largely failed ) over the intervening months to persuade Mr Parkes to establish and maintain a comprehensive, systematic filing system and to apportion areas of responsibility  in reviewing and preparing material for this trial, valuable time was lost while documentation was repeatedly mislaid, re-copied, found again and re-assembled. For some weeks Mr Parkes requested I received, co-ordinated  relayed and copied his e-mail correspondence as at the time he had not had an internet connection. This arrangement worked well until Mr Parkes decided that he would prefer to handle it himself. At Mr Parkes' request I did not attend the trial before Mr Justice Laddie,  however I have read the full transcripts of the trial with great interest. On account of new evidence obtained, which I have seen, I believe that Mr Ward's account may have mislead by omissions and later prove to have been somewhat unreliable. As Mr Justice Laddie appears to have founded in part his judgment on Mr Ward's evidence I think Mr Justice Laddie's viewpoint of Mr Frost's attack on Mr Ward may be wrong.  Over the past six months I have spent much time in Mr John Parkes' company. I was also present at many meetings including an inaugural meeting of Dellex International Plc and a key meeting with patent attorneys in Glasgow. Finally I am certain that Mr Parkes has been in poor health and under tremendous personal stress and strain for many years and that this case has brought him to the point of exhaustion and near collapse. John's determination to pursue this action is, I believe, not so much due to an affront to his patents but because he passionately believes that Cintec's product is unsafe and that they have failed to understand or acknowledge the significance of his and Professor Salter's teachings. Unlike Mr Parkes I have no record of military service. My late father, however, was a long serving officer in the British Army and I was brought up in that environment. My career as a photojournalist started in the North of Ireland in the late 1960's. I am only too aware of the appalling misery and destruction caused by terrorist devices. Having witnessed the deaths of both civilians and members of the security forces, some of whom were friends, I can appreciate the intensity of  purpose which John Parkes is determined should protect his colleagues in the bomb disposal fraternity as they carry out their work.  John Parkes remains convinced that Cintec's product are potentially unsafe and that less attention is paid to the safety of his ex-comrades and the public than the 'bottom line' in business. Whilst the concept of safety may not apply in patent law, the subject has over-shadowed and coloured much of this unfortunate case. I have written the above on my own volition and I believe my comments to be true. I do not believe that Mr  Parkes himself will contradict my above views. Yours sincerely David Liddle   Copied to Mr Radford; Mr Howe; Mr James: Mr John H Parkes; Mr Martin Frost; Professor Stephen Salter; Mr Alan Halliday and Mr John W Parkes.
Return to Views on Terrorism	Return to opening page