Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Judge dread]

POST DATE
29/04/2009 00:00:17

Welcome Billysis. So good to hear from you. After reading Billy's reply to stingray it just highlights the importance of family support and how lucky Billy was to have family waiting for him when he walked out of court a free man. A free man, but a man who had been stripped of everything, apart from his determination it seems. I watch the site with great interest and you have summed up in a few sentences how difficult it must have been for all your family. I wish you all well

[Sandra Lean]

POST DATE
29/04/2009 10:18:44

Got to come clean here - the "Lady" bit is a mistake - keep trying to get Amazon to take it off - there is a Lady Sandra Lean, but she ain't me, I'm afraid.

The whole issue of support is one that I think really needs highlighting. So many people come out to nothing and nobody, especially if they've spent years fighting to have their convictions overturned. The state takes no responsibility for them, even though it's the state's fault they're in that position in the first place. In fact, a couple of years ago, the law was changed to limit compensation claims, and that's not all. Did you know that when wrongly convicted people are finally paid compensation (and it takes years), the government has the audacity to charge back "bed and board" for the time these people were "kept" by the state??

It's disgusting, outrageous, wrong, wrong, wrong .... I'll cut the rant here, before I really get mad.

That's why this site is so critically important. If someone is coming out to pretty much nothing and no-one, but their solicitor knows about this site, they can at least be pointed to somewhere for support.

[admin]

Think Beverly Craven did a song about that, "I may not be a lady, but I'm all woman" or something similar. Still, I looked up 'Lady Sandra Lean' and found an interview she did with the Times, I figure she'd be around mid seventies now so I don't think she'll be taking you to court, just assume the title.

[admin]

lindiloo

POST DATE
11/05/2009 23:18:01

Can i ask a question to all out there if they understand Dna etc...and its results.. If there is no dna how can a person be prosecuted obviously they werent at the scene.. Now if a person is I.D'd and there DNA is not there is this just a case of mistaken identity... If so can someone do time for a crime they didnt do just because some one said it was them with noe evidence to support this claim???

[admin]

POST DATE
11/05/2009 23:43:46

Hi and welcome to the forum,

Your question is a good one, there is an article on the site's published articles page which references DNA and it's use as evidence though the scenario referred to in it deals more with the case of what DNA being present actually means. Which is merely that the person who's DNA is found was at some point in contact with what or who it was found on, but not necessarily that they were there at the scene of any incident or crime when it occurred.

Obviously if DNA is not present it is different. By that I mean that while DNA could prove a person coming in contact with someone or something else at some time, it is not necessarily the case that the lack of DNA proves that they were not. It does however make it technically much less likely, and in the circumstances you describe the more obvious conclusion of mistaken identity is more credible, particularly if there is DNA present that does not match the person ID'd.

I know there have been cases where DNA is present and has been checked against an accused person only to find it doesn't match but prosecution took place anyway. I can't at this moment recall what or who the case was about however it is not unusual for evidence which goes against guilt to simply get brushed under the carpet.

The book by Sandra Lean is well worth a read in this respect, there is reference to DNA within cases highlighted by the book (which are real life cases that she has had involvement with and the book has been scrutinized by lawyers to make sure there is nothing within it that is not accurate for obvious reasons). I also know from my discussions with Sandra Lean out with the forum that she is qualified in understanding what any resulting DNA report actually means, which is not as simple as it seems unlike how it is portrayed on the TV. There is much more to it than simply holding 2 sample results up and looking at blobs, then saying the two cards match, there really is much more to it than that.

My suggestion would be to click the user list above and send her a PM. She'll be only too happy to answer any questions you have on the matter. Obviously there is more to any case than someone being id'd and their DNA not being present, but we'd both be more than willing to talk more about it out with the forum.

edited by admin on 12/05/2009 

[Justice4Brendan]

POST DATE
12/05/2009 09:51:06

The best thing about the conviction of Brendan Dixon is they had DNA but did not have a match for it also footprints again no match.

Also stuff that has come out after trial a witness for the prosecution was spotted outside Mrs Irvine's house that morning by more than one witness, these witnesses were never called to give evidence.

On Hearsay you can get convicted because of chinese whispers in this country, and thats not fair.

So i would say DNA only matters to the police when they want it to.

[admin]

POST DATE
12/05/2009 11:11:50

Hi, Lindiloo, I can offer a general reply which might also be helfpul to others. The bottom line is Yes, people are routinely convicted without DNA belonging to them being found at the crime scene, and without being id'd there. People are also convicted when other people's DNA has been found at the scene, or when other people have been positively id'd there.

What has to be understood is that if the police have chosen a "line of enquiry" (which is, in essence, simply a statement of their own prejudice - "the husband did it," "it has to have been the boyfriend" etc), they will "gather" only that "evidence" which supports their chosen line, and totally ignore everything else. The jury believes that it is being shown "all of the evidence" and to a degree, that is true - they are being shown all of the evidence the prosecution wants them to see. They (jurors) have no idea that there might be a mountain of evidence pointing away from the guy in the dock, and towards other people.

This system allows the legal profession, following conviction, and especially when it comes to appeal, to claim that the matter was "before the jury" and that the jury "decided on the evidence." I have to say, if I was a juror, I'd be livid if I later found out I'd convicted someone on only half the available evidence.

Another problem is people's understanding of how DNA testing works - most people believe that a DNA "match" is irrefutable, especially when it's accompanied with the usual percentages - one in 10 million, one in a billion, etc. Unfortunately, it's all nonsense - the final deciding factor on whether the consituent parts of a sample are a "match" with an accused person or not is always, always, a human decision (opinion.) I believe people would be utterly shocked if they understood just how arbitrary the criteria for claiming a match really are.

For example, current DNA testing in the UK relies on 10 "points" or regions of DNA, each with one male and one female part. I have seen sample results claiming a definitive match in the following cases - a 10% match, a 12% match, a 25% match etc. The reason for testing 10 regions is that all of our DNA has major similarities, and 10 regions was considered a wide enough base to differentiate.How, then, can anyone claim a match with just one region avaiable? In that particular case, there could be thousands of people with the same "reading" for that region, but unless the defence bring in DNA specialists (which they often do not) nobody is any the wiser - the "official" DNA report is accepted as accurate. If even a 100% match is still questionable because it relies on human decision making, how much moreso is any match of less than 100%?

Sorry to have rambled on a bit - so called "forensic" evidence is a major factor in wrongful conviction, and it makes me furious that the scientific community is so secretive that people are kept in the dark. Not all of them, of course - there are some notable exceptions, but as a general rule, we're simply not allowed to know how these decisions are reached, or we're told it's all too complicated and scientific for us mere mortals - I for one have found out that that's simply not the case. Most of us are prefectly capable of understanding if they just put the information simply and honestly in front of us.

[admin]

ann74

POST DATE
13/02/2010 00:15:16

this is whats happning the now with my brother  they are  using tactics to get him to admit to a crime he never commited  threats with getting sent to e hall  and if he loses his appeal they have told him hes getting sent to dumfries   hes finally got his appeal started with a new lawyer the old ones were a complete joke and they were ment to be top of  their game aye right his qc commited perdjury in court so what chance do you stand ..this is the 1st time our family has had any dealings with the police and honestly cant beleive how corrupt this so called justice system is a have been on various sites for the last 2 years now looking for help,info ,campagins just never seem to get any where thou its so damm frustration a feel like chaining my self to the prison gates with a huge banner saying alys innocent any suggestions how a can focus my anger and time doing something positive to help would be much appreciated

thanks for letting me have a wee rant

p.s random strip searches are they allowed to do that any where in the prison (corridor) or does it have to be in a medical room ?
 

[Sandra Lean]

Well goodness me, what a state of affairs. Lord Hamilton shying away from investigating alleged corruption? Never! Judges covering up for other judges? No way. Alcoholic judges? Perish the thought.

I'm only quoting from the article though - see what you think:

http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2010/09/allegations-court-of-session-judge.html

[HaveHope]

NEWSPAPERS  Printing the name of the accused and the nature of the alleged offence.   As yet there has been no charge/s brought against him, and he has been released on bail, after being questioned for 8 hours over historical sexual abuse allegations.  I am not a soap fan, and know nothing about the character, BUT this latest story to be doing the rounds has really got my back up.  IF this man is innocent, this allegation will destroy him and his reputation, due to the no smoke without fire brigade.

I honestly dont think that reporters should be able to put anything in print until the person has been in front of judge and jury. 

[HaveHope]

Another one to pull the mental health card out of the bag.  His actions had nothing to do with schizophrenia imo, you dont need to be an expert to suss that one out

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/11/man-feared-for-his-life-after-neighbour-falsely-named-him-as-james-bulger-killer-on-facebook-115875-23694853/

[HaveHope]

Friday, January 20, 2012
Lord President asks Westminster to amend Scotland Bill, closing Criminal Appeals route to UK Supreme Court on Human Rights issues
Lord President asks for amendment to Scotland Bill allowing Scottish Courts to bury handle Human Rights appeals. IN a move seen by many legal observers as an indication the retiring Lord President, Lord Hamilton may not be so retiring from the legal scene as some may have expected, the Lord President has written to the UK Parliament to ask its MPs to add a restriction on criminal appeals to the UK Supreme Court to the Scotland Bill provisions dealing with devolution issues, thus ensuring the Court of Session can ‘take care of’ any Human Rights infringements, and bury the chance of any appeal from Scotland being heard at the UK’s Supreme Court, a move welcomed (even if it was arranged) by the SNP. The move brings the Lord President into line with the wishes of the Scottish Government, who fell over themselves to castigate the UK’s Supreme Court and even it’s Scottish judges after rulings in the Cadder v HMA case and Nat Fraser appeal.


The Lord President’s representations to Westminster can be read online HERE


Now that the Lord President has ‘rolled over’ to make a judicial request to back up the harsh words from Scottish Ministers, who did not enjoy the impression which was created that Scotland’s justice system and its courts simply couldn't be trusted with appeals, particularly on ECHR issues, the way is now clear for Lord Hamilton to return to a few appointments at the behest of Scottish Ministers as soon as is practicably possible (String pulling comes to mind – Ed)


The Press Release from the Judiciary of Scotland : Lord President Makes Written Representations to Parliament

Click image to read Lord Hamilton’s representation to Westminster. Utilising the powers conferred on him by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord President is laying before the United Kingdom Parliament written representations regarding the Scotland Bill presently before it. Section 5 of the Act provides that the Lord President may lay written representations before Parliament on matters relating to the judiciary or the administration of justice in Scotland. Equivalent powers are available to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

The Lord President is urging Parliament to do two things:


(1) to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal appeals and references to the remedying of infringements by the courts below as well as by the prosecutor; but


(2) to restrict those cases in which leave may be granted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the High Court of Justiciary to cases in which the High Court has certified that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision.


As to (2), the Court of Criminal Appeal in England and Wales and the equivalent court in Northern Ireland have long had a certification procedure which has proved to be valuable. The Lord President wishes to secure a similar provision for the High Court in Scotland.


The Lord President seeks, in the Scotland Bill, an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998 to the above effect.


Constitutional Reform Act 2005


Part 2


Section 5 Representations to Parliament.


(1)The chief justice of any part of the United Kingdom may lay before Parliament written representations on matters that appear to him to be matters of importance relating to the judiciary, or otherwise to the administration of justice, in that part of the United Kingdom.


(2)In relation to Scotland those matters do not include matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, unless they are matters to which a Bill for an Act of Parliament relates.


(3)In relation to Northern Ireland those matters do not include transferred matters within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, unless they are matters to which a Bill for an Act of Parliament relates.


(4)In subsection (3) the reference to transferred matters has the meaning given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).


(5)In this section “chief justice” means—


(a)in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of that part of the United Kingdom;


(b)in relation to Scotland, the Lord President of the Court of Session.


Explanatory Notes


Section 5: Representations to Parliament


Section 5 provides that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Court of Session may table written representations to Parliament on matters relating to the judiciary or the administration of justice. In respect of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, this function is qualified by subsections (2) and (3) in order to respect the devolution settlements with Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.


Constitutional Reform Act 2005

Posted by Legal Beagle at 10:44 AM 1 comments   Links to this post
Labels: Cadder v HMA, Lord Hamilton, Lord President, Scottish Government, Supreme Court
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/