tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post7139289591960545772..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Double jeopardy & the World's End case...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-65795480489567157642012-03-20T09:21:23.635+00:002012-03-20T09:21:23.635+00:00Paul,
Much obliged, and obliged for the punt on y...<b>Paul,</b><br /><br />Much obliged, and obliged for the punt on your own blog! I get quite frustrated by the disservice the media too often do us here - relaying, but manipulating Crown Office press releases, without really getting into the guts of the many hurdles before prosecutors, if the case is to be revisited. As you say, there are many ponderables about how the court will approach the new Act. Will be curious to see.<br /><br /><b>Groundskeeper Willie,</b><br /><br />I'm not privy to the internal sensibilities in the Crown Office, but that certainly seems to be the case. A further investigation was always going to be on the cards. Whether or not it will bear any fruit is another matter.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-58491493584981576052012-03-16T11:09:27.501+00:002012-03-16T11:09:27.501+00:00The Crown Office is embarrassed by this case, not ...The Crown Office is embarrassed by this case, not without reason, and that might explain their apparent wish to be seen to push the envelope on what the Act allows.<br /><br />On the Act in general, I can't help thinking that without it the prosecution in the Pilley case would not have gone ahead, at least not at this stage.Groundskeeper Willienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-27774506651367939072012-03-16T07:01:22.952+00:002012-03-16T07:01:22.952+00:00Excellent piece.
The police generally think, as ...Excellent piece. <br /><br />The police generally think, as often do prosecutors, that an acquittal in a high profile case is wrong. After all, they would not have taken the case through a High Court trial if there was not a reasonable prospect of a conviction.<br /><br />It is the changing of the rules to "fix" the problems of acquittals which seems wrong theresfter, Double jeopardy has gone. Corroboration is likely to follow. Principled objection to retrospective criminal legislation is brushed aside.<br /><br />As your tag says, what about "tholing your assize"?<br /><br />I will be very interested to see how the High Court deals with this issue, and I am sure every defence QC who wishes to put forward a "new evidence" appeal against conviction will be carefully transcribing the Advocate-Depute's arguments in favour of new evidence being allowed in this case, so as to use the same arguments, in future.Paul McConvillehttp://www.scotslawthoughts.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com