tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post8459551615680635901..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: The World's End (again)...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-57051229407297189932012-11-26T06:55:45.012+00:002012-11-26T06:55:45.012+00:00Happy to uncover your blog post as well as the exc...Happy to uncover your blog post as well as the excellent pictures which you have on a regular basis! <a href="http://www.d3face.com/" rel="nofollow">diablo 3 Gold</a><br /><br /> <br /><br /><a href="http://www.rsgold2buy.com/" rel="nofollow">Runescape Gold</a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-6569489562754327922011-02-07T16:36:53.947+00:002011-02-07T16:36:53.947+00:00Conan,
This is the first I've heard of the no...Conan,<br /><br />This is the first I've heard of the notion. With caveats that I haven't looked into it in any detail, <i>prima facie</i> it has every appearance of being an argument that stands a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld in the final analysis. You won't be able to slip your civic obligations so nimbly or so neatly, I'm afraid.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-13276014917210110892011-02-07T12:27:14.111+00:002011-02-07T12:27:14.111+00:00Off topic Lallands, but could you answer a questio...Off topic Lallands, but could you answer a question? And not bill me?<br /><br />http://www.oldholborn.net/2011/02/freeman-on-land-update.html<br /><br />Is this freeman thingy applicable in Scots Law?<br /><br />Just curious, it's not that I don't want to pay my cooncil tax or anything...Conan the Librarian™https://www.blogger.com/profile/01904339261121451779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-46787144197753406832011-02-07T12:14:41.731+00:002011-02-07T12:14:41.731+00:00Thanks for that, VoR.
Very clearly put, particul...Thanks for that, VoR. <br /><br />Very clearly put, particularly in relation to the Sinclair case. Needless to say, I wasn't attempting to imply that it was a piece of defence jiggerypokery. I'm conscious that this blog's audience is primarily interested in politics and the vast majority of folk don't have a legal background. Striking the balance in how things are written and what details to include and exclude can be challenging. <br /><br />On the possibility of a mid-or-post proceeding Crown appeals against a "no case to answer" finding - for my own part I'm not necessarily saying we should adopt such a measure - particularly one of a retrospective stripe, justifying a new trial. It just strikes me as curious, given all the references to <i>HM Advocate v. Sinclair</i> in the context of double jeopardy reform, that no single soul from amongst our tribunes has <i>even proposed</i> the obvious measures which might stand a more reasonable chance of seeing him re-prosecuted.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-37049020558720207382011-02-07T11:33:40.058+00:002011-02-07T11:33:40.058+00:00The fundamental point in the case of HMA Advocate ...The fundamental point in the case of <i>HMA Advocate v Angus Sinclair</i> was that the Advocate Depute had closed the Crown case. Thus, the statutory submission was made against a body of evidence that the Crown erroneously considered sufficient in law.<br /><br />There may indeed hasve been other evidence that the jury did not hear, but that was not as a result of some sneaky trick by the defence to have the case thrown out, but as a result of a tactical decision by the prosecutor not to lead it. In the furore subsequent to the acquittal, this point (namely that other evidence may have existed but not been led) was lost.<br /><br />In the event that some of the wilder proposals about how the abolition of double jeopardy might work ever found their way onto the statute book, then every tactical decision in every trial could be the subject of review, and there would be no finality, the jury's verdict merely being an intermediate stepping stone.<br /><br />There is a practical difficulty, though not an insurmountable one, in allowing the Crown a right of appeal against the upholding of a Section 97 submission. The jury would have to be kept on hold during the appellate proceedings (the outcome of which could not be made known to them), before being required to return to court and resume hearing evidence or submissions; I have grave doubts over the propriety of starting a new trial before a fresh jury. <br /><br />Whatever emerges after the Act is in force, it is likely that there will be very few cases in which devastating new evidence comes to light after acquittal. Even where a witness decides to change their story, experience in "fresh evidence" defence appeals shows how rarely that tactic succeeds.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.com