America

Publican Geoffrey Monks ‘compromises up to £14m’ with Northampton Council after wrongful imprisonment

January 7, 2022
Henry Club

An upmarket publican who lost everything when she was wrongly imprisoned by her local council after ‘retribution’ is set to be paid millions in damages after agreeing to a ‘substantial’ seven-figure settlement.

Geoffrey Monks, 67, who runs The Snooty Fox in Kettering, Northamptonshire, was accused of breaking food safety laws after East Northamptonshire Council claimed to have found ‘mold ham’ inside the premises in 1999.

Following these alleged violations, Dr Monks was fined the largest on record for breaches of six food safety offenses – £25,500 and his legal cost of £8,300.

The pub owner could not pay his costs after losing his businesses and his home, and was imprisoned in 2003 at maximum security HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes – with his cell adjacent to Soham murderer Ian Huntley.

Roger Heath, then chief executive of the ENDC, was invited by the council’s environment department to oversee the sentencing, and claimed in court that the local authority was pursuing ‘vengeance’ against Dr.

The pair’s disagreement is understood to have stemmed from an argument between Dr Monks and Solicitor Jenny Lawrence – described in court as Mr Heath’s ‘sexual partner’ – over a bottle of wine at The Snooty Fox. The council did not deny this claim.

In 2015, Dr. Monks won a retrial of the Snooty Fox case, and two other indictments made against two other former venues were also dropped.

After upholding his innocence for more than two decades, starting a High Court battle against the council in 2019, Dr Monks has now agreed to a seven-figure settlement figure.

The settlement is thought to be in the region of £14 million, and this is only the third time in history that an applicant has successfully claimed an ‘abuse of process’, the last being in 1861.

Public Geoffrey Monks, 67, has agreed a seven-figure settlement figure, believed to be in the region of £14m, with East Northamptonshire Council in a 2019 High Court battle over his wrongful conviction and loss of earnings after starting.

Monks running The Snooty Fox in Kettering, Northamptonshire (pictured) were wrongfully jailed after East Northamptonshire Council claimed to have found 'mold ham' inside the premises in 1999.

Monks running The Snooty Fox in Kettering, Northamptonshire (pictured) were wrongfully jailed after East Northamptonshire Council claimed to have found ‘mold ham’ inside the premises in 1999.

The Monks’ nightmare of 25 years began in 1998 when they banned attorney Jenny Lawrence from Snooty Fox because she was reportedly angry at being served the ‘wrong bottle of wine’.

After Ms Lawrence complained she had suffered food poisoning at an upmarket pub, the ENDC launched an investigation into the ‘Moldy Ham’ at Snooty Fox.

The monks alleged that Ms Lawrence, who is now deemed to no longer practice law, was in a ‘sexual relationship’ with Roger Heath, the chief executive of East Northamptonshire Council at the time. The council did not deny this claim.

In 2000, he was convicted of the Snooty Fox ‘crimes’, despite his legal team’s argument that the evidence presented against him was ‘both thin and contradictory’. After 15 years the prosecution was quashed.

Dr Monks was later charged with possessing rats and broken glass at his other local locations, The Wayne Arms and Samuel Pepsi Pub.

The judges remarked that out of over 7,000 food standards inspections by East Northamptonshire District Council during a decade, only four were convicted – three of which were against Mr.

Environmental officials suggested the monks take ‘remedial’ action for the phantom violations, but this was ignored and the punishment was directly observed by Mr. Heath.

The monks later claimed that the local authority launched a ‘disgraceful campaign’ against them after winning an appeal against their six sentences for food safety violations.

The monks later claimed that the local authority launched a 'disgraceful campaign' against them after winning an appeal against their six sentences for food safety violations. Above: Dr. Monks pictured outside The Snooty Fox in 1997

The monks later claimed that the local authority launched a ‘disgraceful campaign’ against them after winning an appeal against their six sentences for food safety violations. Above: Dr. Monks pictured outside The Snooty Fox in 1997

HMP Woodhill, Milton Keynes

Soham killer Ian Huntley

After losing his business and his home, Dr. Monks was sent to maximum security HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes (left). His cell was next to Sohn’s killer Ian Huntley (right), who was awaiting trial at the time

Dr Monks will spend 57 days at Category A HMP Woodhill in Buckinghamshire, after failing to pay record-breaking fees from alleged food safety breaches.

Once imprisoned in a maximum security prison that housed killers, rapists and terrorists, Dr. Monks suffered a heart attack and has been facing serious health problems ever since.

The campaigner was devastated financially by his prosecution, lost his home and businesses, and was unable to afford the legal costs to challenge the decisions as of 2019.

He is believed to have ruined his life after his high-profile action against the local authority for running up bills of over £150,000.

Dr Monks sued the former Northamptonshire Council, now North Northamptonshire Council, in 2018 after claiming loss of earnings for three of their formerly thriving establishments, which closed in 2018 for £14 million.

Taxpayers in North Northamptonshire are now ready to file a bill for violations of their local authority. The council will also apologize in open court for the actions of its predecessor.

Geraint Thomas, Partner and Head of the Controversy Team at Letons ETL Global, which led Dr Monks’ claim, emphasized that the settlement was reached more than 20 years after East Northamptonshire Council launched its abusive campaign against him .

‘The impact on their health, finances and wellbeing has been nothing short of devastating, but I hope today’s agreement will enable them to at least start rebuilding their lives.

‘It is acknowledged that the actions of East Northamptonshire Council caused serious personal injury, loss and damage to them over a period of more than 20 years, and I sincerely apologize for those actions.’

Clerk Jason Smithers, leader of North Northamptonshire Council, said: ‘East Northamptonshire Council’s decision to prosecute Dr Monks in relation to Snooty Fox was an abuse of process and should never have happened.

‘It is acknowledged that the actions of East Northamptonshire Council caused serious personal injury, loss and damage to them over a period of more than 20 years, and I sincerely apologize for those actions.

‘I hope that Dr Monks is able to restore his reputation and that the substantial damages that the Council has agreed to give him will go a long way in helping him move on with his life.’

Northamptonshire Police have confirmed they are investigating to determine whether criminal offenses should also be brought against the council.

How a Publican Relyed on a Legal Defense That Was Last Used 160 Years Ago

Dr Geoffrey Monk’s legal team won its claim against East Northamptonshire District Council after implementing a rarely used ‘abuse of process’ defense.

In English legal history only two successful civil actions have been brought to recover damages for torture of abuse of process: one in 1838 and the other in 1861. Both involved legal proceedings which were brought about as a tool of extortion.

In 1838, a Mr. Grainger owned a ship he had mortgaged, despite fears that he would not be able to pay off his debt.

His mortgagee, Mr. Hill, demanded payment before the loan became due, and Mr. Grainger was jailed that year as a debtor.

Fearing a prison sentence, Grainger confiscated his ship to Mr. Hill. But a court found that the pawnee had ‘abused his procedures’ after using the sheriff to extort the sailor.

Mr Grainger was later awarded damages from the lost profits that he could not have done without his ship.

The second case, in 1861, involved a similar abuse of court process.

Some proceedings (even if they were not criminal charges) began with the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant. However, since 1861, all actions alleging abuse of process have failed.

One of the highest-profile failures was Goldsmith v Springs in 1977 – the case where Sir James Goldsmith sued Private Eye’s distributors for defamation, intending to settle with them on the condition that they stop distributing the magazine. and therefore put it out of business.

The defendants claimed that Sir James was abusing the process of the court because his real purpose was to close the private eye.

The second case, in 1861, involved a similar abuse of court process, in which the Court of Appeal held that Sir James had a reasoned claim of defamation, and if settled on terms that resulted in Private Eye being out of business. been thrown out. This was one of the consequences of removing the potential liability of distributors through legitimate settlement only.

Since then the consistent approach of courts has been to take a lenient approach to establishing a connection between the alleged purpose of a court proceeding called abusive and the true intentions of the alleged abuser: the policy may be said to be one that particularly those who are content to use legal proceedings as a weapon, so much as to intimidate as a way of justice for harm.

However, in Dr Monks’ case, the allegation of abuse of process does not pertain to a case of extortion, but to a retaliation or the Council’s blatant indifference to its policy when it comes to prosecuting Food Security Act offenses. Was.

Mr Monks claimed he was persecuted by East Northamptonshire Council because he had angered a powerful local lawyer who was a lover of the ENC’s chief executive. The ENC did not deny this.

If the case had gone to trial, a judge would have established that there was an ‘abuse of process’ because the authority’s chief executive, Roger Heath, was accused of having ‘retaliation’ for the defense and intended to humiliate Mr. was to be punished. Solicitors, not for serving contaminated food.

,