Print

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

[admin]

Hi Donna and welcome to the forum

Thanks for joining, I think it's important no matter what the future profession that students learn where things can go wrong and so are better equiped to do what's needed to prevent it when they start their careers. I don't think there's any better way than becoming aware of the many cases of suspected miscarriages of justice whether you're a future solicitor or future forensic expert.

You might want to start a topic here - http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/legal-courses/ - with your course details as the topic title. It would be the first in that board but hopefully as more future solicitors join and post their own courses you'll be able to share information on your studies and of course other members will help in any way they can too.

[HaveHope]

Hello Donna and welcome to the forum. 

[pinkmegan]

Hi
Now that I have looked through your very impressive site I'm not sure that I've come to the right place. I, and my partner, have not been accused of a crime but have had numerous, totally untrue and libellous accusations made, by only two people with whom we worked.  Over the previous 5 years we had worked with numerous other people who, if they had been asked, would have told an entirely different story, but, of course, no one else was asked!
Before going into details as to what happened I will tell you what the outcome was.  We were not dismissed from our jobs but did not get the promotion which we were due.  We were also going to have to work for a year under constant scrutiny, with a 'development improvement plan' in place as our work was 'deemed to be so bad'! As we had done the job competently for the previous 4 years this was just one insult to far and we felt that we had no choice to resign.  My partner suffered a total breakdown and succumbed to deep depression which left him unable to work for over a year. He now has a part time job which he is coping with. This left me having to work long hours to support us both and which led to my being unwell for 2 months earlier this year.  Luckily I received basic pay so we got by!
We will never get over this.  It is on my mind all the time and I don't feel that we will ever have any closure.  We did try and contacted personnel, with whom we had a long interview, giving our side of the story but we were not believed.

If anyone can give any advice as to how we get any closure from this we would really appreciate it.

[nugnug]

hi pink Megan what i can tell is that it is actually a crime to deliberately and maliciously make up story's about people i will try and find of the act.

[admin]

Hi pinkmegan and welcome to the forum,

What you're getting into here is employment law too though, which is considerably different to the areas more frequently discussed but demonstrates pretty well, that the emotional/psychological impact of accusations doesn't begin at point of being convicted, charged or even arrested, but long before that.

This really needs to be a topic in it's own right, rather than being discussed here in the introduction thread, but I'm not entirely sure where it best fits at the moment. I'll have a think about it and get something try to get something sorted out later today.

It can't really be in the other wrongly accused cases board, because they're all criminal cases and as I say employment law is very different, it really needs it's own area in case there are others in future. Employers have certain responsibilities imposed upon them, while I can see where nugnug is coming from, those responsibilities may mean it would be better to address them, at least initially.

For example, if you consider the shoes being on all the different feet, the duty of care an employer has means they can't discuss private details of their employees, even if they are no longer employed by them. Money, health, religious beliefs, etc. etc. all private matters, shouldn't be discussed, if it causes the employee/ex employee distress and it can be proven they can get their cheque books out, it wouldn't even matter it were true or not, the only difference that might make would be to the number of zeros on the end since obviously a false claim would cause even more distress. That protects the employee from the employer. Then they have a responsibility to protect employees from prejudice, hazards etc. in the work place, that in large part is to protect employees from other employees by making it the employers responsibility to ensure they are not condoning an environment which is unfair, unsafe or unhealthy. That seems more in line with your description obviously, they would have a responsibility to properly establish both the credibility of the claims, and their relevance to your employment. There are others obviously, but I can't think of any quick examples off the top of my head, and it's not really necessary.

The point is, if you went to the police, you'd probably be told it's your word against theirs and that you should really take it up with your employer. Keeps it out their statistics that way without venturing outside the warmth of the office. If they did have a cursory glance at it, the first people they'd speak with would probably be your employer, who is after what you've described probably either going to deny all knowledge and claim they don't know why you left, or worse make you out to be the problem to protect themselves. You're saying you weren't being accused of a crime, so their other get out clause is to suggest civil action instead.

On top of that, assuming the very brief overview you've given can be substantiated, an impending promotion, followed by the accusations which you say no one else was asked about, everything that followed etc.  Would you be here today had the employer fulfilled their obligations or would the false accusers have been reprimanded instead?

I'd suggest a trip to the Citizen's Advice Bureao taking everything you've got to back up what you say with you, they're free, it's the sort of thing they should be able to give an impartial view on and may well depending on the full circumstances be willing to represent you in some form.

[WenGeo6]

Hi
I have been a 'silent' member for some time & have now decided to talk! Great site thanks.
My Brother Graham has been wrongly convicted of conspiracy to murder & was sentenced to a minimum 32yrs.
The crime is supposedly conspiracy involving 2 people, yet they were tried separately, Graham in April 2009 & his co-defendent in July 2010.
The prosecution with all their resources put together the circumstantial evidence that suited them to come up with a ‘story’. Graham had to be defended without any knowledge or evidence from his co-defendent. The legal team were only able to defend knowing Grahams account of events, they had no answers to the whole ‘story’. Had Graham known his co-defendents defence his would have been approached differently.
The prosecution led the co-defendents trial on the basis that all things Graham had said were a lie as he had been convicted. The prosecution were able to select things from Grahams trial to make a point without them being defended. The prosecution relied heavily on Grahams inconsistent statements without any consideration for his state of mind - shock /illness/ poor memory /guessing.
The prosecution manipulated the system for Graham & his co-defendent to be tried separately in order to win the case(s).
Forgot to say the co-defendent was convicted, so his account of events or all the ‘new evidence’ cannot be used because as he was found guilty everything he said was a lie!

[nugnug]

welcome to the forum wengeo6

[admin]

Hi WenGeo, welcome to the forum and thanks.

I was going to reply a little earlier but couldn't quite decide where to suggest starting a thread on your brother's case. I was going to suggest the joint enterprise board because there are obvious similarities but as I was posting I thought that wasn't such a good idea because conspiracy and joint enterprise doctrine are different so it's probably better that they're not confused as being the same. It would be difficult to conceive of a way that either Jordan Towers or Jordan Cunliffe for example could have been tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, each of the incidents concerned were spontaneous. That's not to say conspiracy to commit convictions are safe necessarily, in fact they're openly recognised as being risky in terms of the safety of convictions in this Justice Committee meeting on Joint Enterprise - http://info.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/external-videos/hoc-justice-committee-joint-enterprise/ I'm pretty sure from memory that the reluctance to use conspiracy laws because of the risks is discussed during the questioning of Keir Starmer.

So, for that reason I would suggest starting a topic on your brother's case here http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/other-specific-wrongly-accused-cases/ though I'm sure people will see similarities. For example, you mention the difficulty posed being tried separately and hence not knowing what the co-defendent's account of events would be. However, that danger exists in Joint Enterprise cases also, even when they are tried together because regardless each has a right to professional legal privilege. Obviously if tried at the same time, each would have to submit a defence case statement but in reality those would probably be so vague as to be virtually useless, it wouldn't mean you would gain access to any records of discussions they had with their solicitor etc.  I can certainly see the disadvantage for your brother, his co-defendent could obviously prepare his defence around your brother's trial so there is an advantage for him, but you could also say that the prosecution have the opportunity to shore up any difficulties that were presented to them in your brother's trial too so that advantage isn't one sided. The problem is, I don't think you can say that being tried together would have necessarily been fair either, it may depend how it played out in court as Keir Starmer puts it.

[WenGeo6]

Thanks for the reply. I will check things out & see where I get!
The main issue we have about the seperate trials is that Graham supposedly hired his co-d as the hitman, therefore he was tried & convicted on a 'figment of the prosecutions imagination'.

[HaveHope]

Hello pinkmegan and welcome to the wrongly accused person forum. 

[HaveHope]

Hi WenGeo6, welcome to the foum. 

[danieldossey]

Hello to all.

I am Daniel Dossey. My wife an I are currently facing horrendous accusations pertaining to child abuse. He have been adjudicated in the juvenile court, which uses a "preponderance of evidence" rather the "beyond a reasonable doubt."  We continue to fight to prove our innocence, and have even provided medical evidence to show that we didn't harm our son, but rather that he does indeed have an underlying condition. I have started a blog to tell our full story, and post updates on where things stand. nojusticeinthejudicialsystem.blogspot.com Our attorneys are hopeful that we will prevail. Thank you for your support.

[HaveHope]

Hello Daniel Dossey and welcome to the Wrongly Accused Persons forum.

What a terrible situation that you and your wife have found yourselves in.  Good luck with your fight to clear your name.  I will have a read at your blog tomorrow.

[admin]

Hi Daniel and welcome to the forum,

Just a general message for now since I notice you've included a website address because being an introduction topic, it will over time be followed by further new member posts and become less prominent. So, to ensure you get the best use of the forum, I would suggest starting a new topic, complete with link of course (which needs to include http:// at the start if you want it to be clickable), in this board - http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/cases-from-outwith-the-uk/

If you start one with the topic title/subject set in the format "name - alleged offence" it will be easier for people to find and being a topic in it's own right should mean it won't be negated by people discussing something else on it.

[Toth]

Toth is back.
I'm from the other side of that great big pond that separates us both culturally and legally.

I'm just back from a trip to the ER (what you refer to as Casualty) and some very serious (and costly) emergency cardiac surgery.

I was actually thinking of the case during a good portion of my hospital stay but the most significant incident took place when a Catholic priest was summoned into the darkened room but during his officiations he realized he should be devoting his attentions towards the patient in the adjoining bed. I certainly expected to die and I admit that at the time I wanted to die but I also admit that it would be such a shame for me to be pronounced officially sober and to die so far distant from a casino.