tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post4699027039346713505..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: The World's End case: Ca'ing Canny...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-28849172280381451262013-01-10T22:04:03.962+00:002013-01-10T22:04:03.962+00:00LPW: Re your comment on 23rd December. I can see n...LPW: Re your comment on 23rd December. I can see no obstacle to the Court of Appeal publishing any decision refusing authority for a fresh prosecution, but cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be appropriate to publish a judicial decision that the new evidence makes it "highly likely" than an accused would be convicted, in advance of the trial itself.<br /><br />That, of course, raises a further issue. Where someone who has previously been acquitted is re-prosecuted, it may well be in a reasonably well known case. Any interested member of the public willing to spend ten minutes on Google would then be able to jalouse that the new evidence was apparently of extreme significance in establishing guilt.<br /><br />Thus unless the whole process is covered by acontempt of court order until the verdict, there appear to be extremely clear risksthe_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-79000805644117488782013-01-08T00:05:14.150+00:002013-01-08T00:05:14.150+00:00LPW,
It'll be a tough one for the judges to ...LPW, <br /><br />It'll be a tough one for the judges to pass, for sure. Given the extremely authoritarian chaacter of the SNP, so authoritarian that they couldn't wait until the result of their pop quiz, multiple choice, demographically jerrymandered, negatively worded 'referendum' was in before they started demolishing the citizen's protections against persecution disguised as process, that they will no doubt turn on the judges if they bring in the wrong result and try to impose the same form of political control over the courts as they may have succeeded in imposing over the police (after all, one Chief Constable for Scotland might be more susceptible to political pressure than eight). <br /><br />Who'd be for justice in a Scotland divided from the Union? Not its soi-disant 'civic nationalists', as far as I can see. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11219870920638914624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-29184052386284368732012-12-25T12:38:57.661+00:002012-12-25T12:38:57.661+00:00Hmmm. I hope the judges interpret this as strictl...Hmmm. I hope the judges interpret this as strictly as possible. Otherwise the first comment above could be all too prescient.<br /><br />Or maybe even if we don't have any new evidence, we'll just frighten you into a nervous breakdown by telling the press we're going after you. Like they've been doing with Lamin Fhimah, the man acquitted in the Lockerbie trial. They didn't have any evidence against him in the first place, they don't seem to have any now, and the smart money says there's none to be had - not least because it's blindingly obvious he had nothing at all to do with it. This isn't stopping them initiating press reports at irregular intervals declaring that he's on the double jeopardy list. The man is reportedly terrified.<br /><br />Wonderful legal system we have.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-90555487627051656442012-12-23T20:13:43.494+00:002012-12-23T20:13:43.494+00:00the_voice_of_reason,
An interesting point. It sug...<b>the_voice_of_reason,</b><br /><br />An interesting point. It suggests another, more general one. If the Court of Appeal is called upon to assess whether the new evidence which the Crown is relying on to set aside the acquittal makes it "highly likely" the accused person would have been convicted, is it possible for <i>any</i> new trial to take place after an acquittal, which doesn't rely on a (potentially prejudicial) assessment by the court that the accused would in all probability face conviction, had they answered an indictment supplemented by the new evidence?Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-30085652133955900502012-12-23T13:27:48.422+00:002012-12-23T13:27:48.422+00:00"No doubt we'll hear in greater detail, w..."No doubt we'll hear in greater detail, when the application is presented in open court some time in the new year."<br /><br />I suspect not; given that, if successful in their application, the Crown will proceed to a fresh trial before a jury, the need to avoid prejudicial pre-trial publicity might make it essential that the court's decision, and the evidence on which it is based, are made the subject of an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.<br /><br />If not, Sinclair's defence team would seem to have a pretty solid argument against the trial proceeding.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-70647539864640767962012-12-21T09:42:50.017+00:002012-12-21T09:42:50.017+00:00"not lead before the jury"
should be &q..."not lead before the jury"<br /><br />should be "not led"<br /><br />Scotland..The People's Republic of North Britain.<br />We'll keep putting you on trial under we get the verdict we want.Georgenoreply@blogger.com