 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
| Anonymous |
 Posted: 16-11-2002 16:44 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
There's a statute of limitations on rape? Never knew that!
Let's not forget the recent plans unveiled to 'modernise' the criminal justice bill. No more double jeopardy, so the CPS can do as crap a job as they like, because they're going to be allowed as many cracks of the whip as it takes to fit someone up. Sorry - if they can't get it right first time, the defendant walks. No more right of the defendant to have previous kept from the jury - despite the fact that you can apply to have your previous brought it - sometimes it helps the defence. So now, we can rely on good old Joe Public to think 'Well, they've done it before, so obviously they've done it again.' Also, limiting the number of Trial by Jury. It's a sorry day when they take away that basic right.
I strongly object to the implication that defendants are guilty, which is what these proposals seem to suggest. I am fully aware of the kind of travesties of justice the Police and CPS are capable of. It sickens me that there are some people around who think these proposals are a good idea.
BTW, AFAIK, there was more evidence against the Guildford Four than the Birmingham Six, although they Four were released before the B'ham Six. Mind you, that's not saying much. There wasn't much evidence against the Guildford Four either. Shame there wasn't more fuss made about the photos of the defendants taken after questioning. It didn't take a huge legal brain to work out what had been going on there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 10-05-2007 16:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Man cleared of terror charges
Mr McMenamin was delighted for himself but also for his mother.
A Londonderry man has walked free from court - 27 years after he was wrongly convicted.
Charlie McMenamin,45, was only 16 when he was convicted of terrorist offences in the city and was in custody for three years.
His case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Lord Justice Campbell said he and two fellow judges had "a sense of unease about the convictions".
Outside the court Mr McMenamin who lives in the Creggan area of Londonderry said he was delighted not only for himself but also for his mother.
"Down the years my mother encouraged me to keep trying to clear my name and now it's been done.
"It will also be great news for the rest of the family who went through torture with the British army and the RUC after I was imprisoned."
Mr McMenamin's wife Catherine was in court to hear the three judges quash his convictions.
During the hearing it was revealed that on the day the then schoolboy was alleged to have been involved in a gun attack on soldiers in the Bogside he was in a training school after running away from home.
That information led to an official in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions telling the RUC that the charges were not to be proceeded with.
But the direction was never communicated to the prosecuting lawyer and the teenager was convicted on statements of admission he made to avoid more ill-treatment while in Strand Road police station."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6589625.stm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 21-10-2010 15:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Retrial in case of farmer allegedly fed to his dogs
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1021/1224281621535.html
DEREK SCALLY in Berlin
Thu, Oct 21, 2010
FIVE YEARS ago Bavarian farmer’s wife Hermine Rupp was found guilty of killing her husband Rudolf, chopping him into pieces and feeding him to their dogs.
Yesterday she returned to court for a retrial after Rudolf’s body turned up in the river Danube, eight years after he vanished.
The retrial in the Bavarian town of Landshut began with a reading of the 2004 prosecutor’s indictment. It described a colourful chain of events in which a drunk Mr Rupp, a 52-year-old known locally as Rudi, was allegedly set upon by his wife, two daughters, Manuela and Andrea, as well as Matthias, Manuela’s fiancé.
According to the indictment, the four beat him unconscious with a plank, cut him up and fed him to their two Dobermans, bull terrier and Alsatian. They boiled his head, the indictment added, threw the remains left by the dogs on the dunghill and sold his black Mercedes for scrap.
After a high-profile case in 2005, a court found the farmer’s wife and Matthias guilty of manslaughter and handed down eight-year sentences. The daughters were found guilty of acting as accessories.
Now they are on trial a second time and everyone in the courtroom knows the original accusations and verdict are completely wrong.
“That makes this case unique,” said Regina Rick, defence lawyer for Manuela Rupp. She said she would be calling for a full inquiry into the original police investigation, in particular their questioning methods.
She said the four accused were intellectually challenged and were unable to deal mentally with the original police questioning. The verdict was based largely on a confession from Matthias, which he later withdrew.
“The police wanted a confession and they got one,” said Mr Klaus Wittmann, representing Ms Rupp, who said his client had an IQ of 53, well below average.
“I wouldn’t rule out that [Rupp] was drunk and drove his car into the Danube.”
Today the court will hear from police witnesses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-11-2010 20:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Manslaughter conviction overturned
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1122/breaking51.html
Mon, Nov 22, 2010
The Court of Criminal Appeal has overturned a man’s conviction 40 years ago for the manslaughter of a young woman, whose body was found in the Dublin mountains in late 1971 two months after she had disappeared.
The three judge court quashed Martin Conmey’s conviction as unsafe after finding “newly discovered facts” showed there may have been a miscarriage of justice in his case.
The court found initial statements taken by gardaí from certain witnesses in the case, which were different to later statements provided by those witnesses, had not been supplied to the defence when they should have been. Lawyers for Mr Conmey had argued those original statements proved he was innocent.
The verdict was followed by a loud round of applause, embraces and tears of joy from a large number of friends, family and supporters of Mr Conmey, who had gathered in the Four Courts.
A shocked and very emotional Mr Conmey said afterwards his faith in the justice system had been restored and he thanked his wife and son for their support and belief in him.
Mr Conmey (59), Porterstown Lane, Ratoath, Co Meath, had always maintained he was not responsible for the death of 19-year-old civil servant Una Lynsky. She vanished while returning home from work on the evening of October 12th, 1971.
Her journey from the bus stop to her family home at Porterstown Lane should have taken 15 minutes by foot but she never returned home. Two months later her body was discovered in a remote part of the Dublin mountains.
A postmortem examination failed to reveal exactly how Ms Lynskey died. She had no broken bones and there were no signs she was strangled.
Mr Conmey and another man, Dick Donnelly, was convicted of her manslaughter in 1972. A third man, Martin Kerrigan, was also suspected of having been involved in Ms Lynskey’s death, but he was abducted and killed a short time after her body was discovered.
Mr Donnelly won his appeal against his conviction in 1973 but Mr Conmey was unsuccessful in his appeal and served a three-year sentence for the offence.
He later again appealed against his conviction under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 which allows an appeal to be brought on the basis of newly discovered facts. His lawyers will now seek a declaration there was a miscarriage of justice in the case.
In quashing the conviction, the court, comprising Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, presiding, and sitting with Mr Justice Declan Budd and Mr Justice Eamon de Valera, found certain original statements made by witnesses at Mr Conmey’s trial were not disclosed to the defence when they should have been.
Gardaí took witness statements from three men and then returned a number of days later to take further statements, which were different from the originals, the court noted.
Mr Justice Hardiman said the reasons for the gardaí’s actions and why the statements had changed was unexplained.
Lawyers for Mr Conmey argued the non-disclosure in 1972 of witness statements favouring the defence proved his innocence. It was claimed certain witness statements and evidence given at his trial were inconsistent with earlier statements to gardaí which were not disclosed.
In those earlier statements, the witnesses were unable to place Mr Conmey or a car owned by Mr Donnelly, in which the DPP had alleged Mr Conmey was travelling, on Poterstown Lane between 7pm and 7.15pm on the evening Ms Lynskey was last seen.
The statements were all inconsistent with the State’s case Mr Conmey was in the back seat of the car in Porterstown Lane at the relevant time.
Those statements were taken from three witnesses Martin Madden, John Shevlin and Seán Reilly. It was claimed their evidence at Mr Conmey’s trial placed Mr Donnelly’s car in the Porterstown area at the relevant time and were central to securing a conviction against Mr Conmey.
One of the witnesses, Seán Reilly the court heard, said he was kept at a Garda station for five hours and was subjected to abuse and assault prior to his making his the later statement.
In opposing the application, the DPP argued delay by Mr Conmey in bringing the action. It was also argued relevant material was not withheld from Mr Conmey and that the statements at issue were not significant enough to have any realistic effect on Mr Conmey’s trial. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-11-2010 15:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Jubilant scenes outside court
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1123/1224283934394.html
ALISON HEALY
Tue, Nov 23, 2010
REACTION: THERE WERE jubilant scenes in the Court of Criminal Appeal when Martin Conmey’s conviction was quashed.
His relatives and friends burst into applause and hugged each other. Several of them had tears in their eyes.
Outside the Four Courts afterwards, Mr Conmey said he was “in total shock” and still could not believe the ruling. He said he had not been at all confident that the conviction would be quashed and he described the years since his conviction as “hell, complete and utter hell”.
Mr Conmey said he had a little bit more faith in the justice system now. “I’m an innocent man. I’ve suffered all these years for something I’ve never done,” he said, his voice cracking with emotion.
“I’m just so delighted that the court has come to this decision. They’ve seen justice at last. They’ve seen that there was a wrong done to me.”
His sister Mary, who is married to Úna Lynskey’s first cousin Pádraig Gaughan, said the death had caused a huge split in the family.
She said justice would never be done for Úna until the key suspect was found. A girl answering Ms Lynskey’s description had been seen struggling in the back of a Ford Zodiac car with a middle-aged man but gardaí never followed that line of inquiry, she said.
Mr Gaughan said families had been destroyed over this case. “We died for years, but this day is a great day,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened.”
He said it was also important to remember Martin Kerrigan, his friend who was also suspected of being involved in the case. He was abducted and killed, shortly after Úna Lynskey’s body was found. Ms Lynskey’s two brothers and their cousin were convicted of Kerrigan’s manslaughter in 1972.
“Young Marty died for nothing and it wasn’t right,” Mr Gaughan said. His wife added that Mr Kerrigan’s sisters had attended the appeal hearings.
“We got justice today but they’ll never get justice for Marty,” she said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stormkhan Disturbingly familiar Joined: 28 May 2003 Total posts: 5330 Location: Robin Hood country. Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-11-2010 22:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
I strongly object to the implication that defendants are guilty, which is what these proposals seem to suggest. I am fully aware of the kind of travesties of justice the Police and CPS are capable of. It sickens me that there are some people around who think these proposals are a good idea.
|
I must point out that in our current judicial system, and the system that's been going on for decades if not centuries, there has never been the concept that a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". This isn't an opinion or political consideration but legal fact.
Consider this:
As soon as someone is arrested they are (usually) detained until court decides a case is to answer and then they are to appear as defendant in the case itself. This is where bail is set, dependent on the crime answered and the likelihood of the defendent reappearing. So the consideration is: a crime has been committed and this person is a possible committer of this crime.
The Crown Prosecution Service decides if a) the case is in the public interest, b) the State - as accuser - has a strong case to prosecute or c) the case is essential to the protection of society. So ... if the CPS says "prosecute them!" then a capable, intelligent organisation has decided that the person is guilty already and is putting it forward for public consideration.
In a trial, there is the defendant. The state is the prosecution. In UK law, the prosecution presents its case, declares evidence and produces witnesses to put forward its case. Automatically, the defense (and the clue is in the name here) can only refute evidence given, question evidence and present counter-evidence, and present it's own witness.At no time is the defendant considered innocent of the crime! If the State thought them innocent then the CPS wouldn't bring the case forward.
In effect - if you are a defendant in court then you are assumed to be guilty. You have to prove your innocence.
This long-winded post may seem not to add anything to the original thread subject but I hope it's clarified one thing in UK law - there is no such thing as presumption of innocence. If it gets to court - and a presentation to a jury of (I hope) a group of disinterested equals - then a person is actually trying to prove the State mistaken in their case.
Three things - if someone is (rightly) found innocent, then a cause or another responsible is still to be found. Let off the innocent but still look for the guilty! If Plod fabricated evidence then it is wrong. End of. However, if your a clever, criminal scrote who's dodged getting caught then it must be a massive temptation to the police to fabricate - and members of the police are human! Finally, it's only in fiction that Defense Teams actively look for the real criminals - this is the job of the police. The Defense should only be interested in presenting their clients case, to persuade the jury to return a verdict of "Not Guilty". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21362 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-11-2010 23:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Stormkhan wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: |
I strongly object to the implication that defendants are guilty, which is what these proposals seem to suggest. I am fully aware of the kind of travesties of justice the Police and CPS are capable of. It sickens me that there are some people around who think these proposals are a good idea.
|
I must point out that in our current judicial system, and the system that's been going on for decades if not centuries, there has never been the concept that a defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". This isn't an opinion or political consideration but legal fact.
Consider this:
As soon as someone is arrested they are (usually) detained until court decides a case is to answer and then they are to appear as defendant in the case itself. This is where bail is set, dependent on the crime answered and the likelihood of the defendent reappearing. So the consideration is: a crime has been committed and this person is a possible committer of this crime.
The Crown Prosecution Service decides if a) the case is in the public interest, b) the State - as accuser - has a strong case to prosecute or c) the case is essential to the protection of society. So ... if the CPS says "prosecute them!" then a capable, intelligent organisation has decided that the person is guilty already and is putting it forward for public consideration.
...
|
So wrong!
Presumption of innocence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JamesWhitehead Piffle Prospector Joined: 02 Aug 2001 Total posts: 5779 Location: Manchester, UK Gender: Male |
| Posted: 24-11-2010 02:51 Post subject: |
|
|
|
"Automatically, the defense (and the clue is in the name here)"
I keep looking at it and wondering.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stormkhan Disturbingly familiar Joined: 28 May 2003 Total posts: 5330 Location: Robin Hood country. Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 27-11-2010 19:45 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| JamesWhitehead wrote: | "Automatically, the defense (and the clue is in the name here)"
I keep looking at it and wondering. |
I merely think that the term "defense" is relating to "defending" your innocence - something which, if you're considered innocent, is redundant.
Apart from Wikipedia - the fount of all knowledge - it is common knowledge that the legal system of the UK is based on "Innocent until proved ..." However, ask a solicitor, barrister or judge: If your case reaches a court of law (over a magistrates court) then the prosecution is sure of either the weakness of your defence or the strength of the case against you. I reiterate - your defence team, or barrister or you yourself are disproving the evidence of your guilt. They - or you - aren't proving your innocence. You come to court, in a trial judged by a jury of your peers, in order to prove your innocence of the crime, the evidence of case which is presented by the prosecution, usually representing the State.
It's only in TV series and movies that a defence team go to great (and sometimes dramatic) lengths to discover the actual criminal. Ask anyone in the legal profession - of the civil case courts, anyhow - they'll say that when they defend a client, their job is to prove their client didn't do it. "Who did" isn't a factor.
Rynner -
| Quote: | | The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, [...] |
This statement actually backs up my argument - the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In usual cases in UK law, it's only when the prosecutors, i.e. The Crown, feel that their case is "sound" that the accused are brought to court. The judiciary judge but the Crown prosecute on behalf of society. However, when an accused approaches the defendants dock - and, you will note, that innocent or not by law, they are under legal restraint in that dock on the assumption that they are facing a discussion of a crime in which they are considered the guilty party.
You don't get an innocent bloke demanding his legal representatives to bring a case to court, to silence scandalmongers and gossips, say. When it gets to court, you are considered to be proving your innocence; and this is redundant if you are already considered innocent.
I'd like to point out that I've got a lot of admiration for the judicial principal of the UK - the theoretical ideas are sound - it's just like any ancient system ... it develops flaws and needs upkeep to stay in the modern world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21362 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 27-11-2010 21:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
If the prosecution can't prove the accused's guilt, then he is innocent.
Until then, he's merely a supect, but definitely not 'presumed guilty'.
I can't see that there's any more to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Stormkhan Disturbingly familiar Joined: 28 May 2003 Total posts: 5330 Location: Robin Hood country. Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 28-11-2010 21:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
True, very true.
And amusing writing, to boot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 24-05-2011 13:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | George Davis wins appeal against robbery conviction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13516591
George Davis's case attracted widespread attention
Related Stories
Man appeals over 1975 conviction
Appeal over 1974 Davis robbery
A man who continually denied involvement in an armed robbery has won an appeal against his conviction.
George Davis was jailed for 20 years for armed robbery and wounding, after a raid in April 1974 at the then London Electricity Board, in Essex.
Three appeal court judges allowed the conviction challenge brought by Davis, who is now 69, and lives in London.
Davis, who said he was not seeking compensation, was delighted but described it as a bitter-sweet moment.
Evidence to show the convictions were unsafe "had been in the hands of the authorities since 1977", lawyers said.
The convictions were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), an independent body which investigates possible miscarriages of justice.
Announcing the decision Lord Justice Hughes said "new material affecting the identifications of the two policemen at the scene of the robbery is of considerable significance".
'Mistaken identity'
He said: "We do not know whether Davis was guilty or not, but his conviction cannot be said to be safe."
After the ruling, Davis said in a statement: "I am, of course, delighted that my conviction has been quashed.
"I have been protesting my innocence since 1974."
Davis was tried, along with three other defendants, in 1975 but was the only one found guilty.
He was sentenced to 20 years in prison but released the following year after the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins said there was serious doubt about his identification.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
I have made it clear that I have no intention of seeking compensation for my wrongful conviction”
George Davis
Lord Hughes said this was done on the basis he (Mr Jenkins) was "satisfied that the identification evidence has been seriously weakened" but he did not "have the evidence of innocence to justify recommending a free pardon".
He said the Court of Appeal was in "a similar state of ignorance whether or not the defendant committed this robbery and we are unable positively to exonerate him".
During the 1970s, Davis's case attracted widespread attention with punk band Sham 69 writing a song about him.
His campaigners insisted he was the victim of mistaken identity and had not taken part in the robbery in which a police officer was shot in the leg and injured.
Roger Daltrey, frontman of The Who, wore a T-shirt proclaiming Davis's innocence, with the convicted man's name daubed across railway and road bridges.
Davis said: "I have made it clear that I have no intention of seeking compensation for my wrongful conviction.
"I have pursued this appeal for all these years because I wanted all those people who worked for, and helped, the campaign in the 1970s to know that their support was justified."
The appeal was heard in February before Lord Justice Hughes, Mr Justice Henriques and Mrs Justice Macur.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spudrick68 Great Old One Joined: 08 Jun 2008 Total posts: 1110 Location: sunny Morecambe Age: 45 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 24-05-2011 23:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
It reminds me of some graffiti I saw in the '70's. Someone had scrawled "free George Davis" on a wall. Underneath someone had added "with every packet of Kellogs Cornflakes".
I'll get my coat... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 9109 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 24-05-2011 23:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spudrick68 wrote: | It reminds me of some graffiti I saw in the '70's. Someone had scrawled "free George Davis" on a wall. Underneath someone had added "with every packet of Kellogs Cornflakes".
I'll get my coat... |
Yeah, that joke was normally associated with Nelson Mandela. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
