How did this guy get convicted?

[saaby93]

On appeal it wsa shown it wasnt his taxi and his phone wasnt there

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wale...
Surely he should only have been convicted on evidence that showed he was there
He shouldnt need to find something to prove his innocence

[JustAnotherLogin]

Given some people's prejudices, I doubt the name "Mohammed Islam" would have helped him

[don4l]

Here is the report of the magistrates hearing:-
http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/139429/cab-driv...

It certainly looks like "Beyond reasonable doubt" didn't apply in this case.


The magistrate(s) involved should resign.

[saaby93]

Luckily he had a different type of taxi and so the appeal worked
If he did have the same type, how would that have played out for him?

[Eclassy]

This could sadly happen to anyone. Like someone said, his name would have done him no favours.

[davepoth]

The magistrates are a bit of a toss-up really - you can get some fairly perverse verdicts there. We'll never know what really happened, but my guess is that he didn't take it especially seriously until the guilty verdict.

[aw51 121565]

don4l said:

... The magistrate(s) involved should resign.

Magistrates are merely well-meaning amateurs (and arbiters, and our peers) with minimal expenses claims, let us not forget - they acted upon information presented to them versus the defence presented and sentenced according to their findings (hint: we're talking about the results of an appeal here, not the original outcome of a trial ); the "prosecutors" in the original case deserve several well-deserved kicks in the flange and/or 'nads as appropriate, as do the "defence"!

Let's also not forget Stefan Kiszko, who served nigh-on 20 years' imprisonment following similar sloppy case prep (including withholding of significant evidence which would have scuppered the prosecution's case had it been admitted as evidence - though the mags passed the case on to crown court pretty sharpish, from memory, which is a significant change to the case we're discussing) . He also suffered the effects of defence briefs and silks who were ill-prepared or just couldn't be bothered (the prosecution revealing further evidence to the defence on the first day of the trial didn't help...) and who didn't ask the right (or any?) questions to shed doubt and then kick the case into the long grass during the trial...

I'm just glad that the OP's chap managed a quick appeal (it took Kiszko nearer 20 years)... But the OP's linked story reflects well on nobody and I'm surprised this amateurish st happens nowadays!!

Nothing to do with the mags, though; they acted on the evidence available and the defence presented on the day - and it seems the defence subscribed to the unofficial "Six Pees" * . And that's not good, especially as they apparently had a bigger bout of "can't be bothered" than the prosecution and the poor bloke went through the mill for it..

At least Justice was done in the end...










*The "Six Pees": Pss Poor Preparation Precludes Proper Performance .

[saaby93]

It shouldnt depend on how much youve paid youre defence team You could be standing there on your own in the clothes given you at birth. Otherwise who pays for the best lawyers wins.

He's a taxi driver. Suppose he does have the same type of cab and his phone records shows he dropped someone off at the same place
He says he didn't do it. He gets picked out at an identity parade
Who wins?

[Claudia Skies]

saaby93 said:

He says he didn't do it.

I think you'll find the prisons are full of people who said that!

[saaby93]

Claudia Skies said:

saaby93 said:

He says he didn't do it.

I think you'll find the prisons are full of people who said that!

Well not 'full', but 'a number'.
Hopefully for all of them there's some evidence that shows they were.

[Smiler.]

That's outrageous, the poor bloke.

Does he have any recourse against the crown, at least to recoup his costs?

This is why I have little faith in the legal profession.

[Dr Jekyll]

He does seem to have been convicted primarily on identification evidence, which is always dodgy.