Another acquittal for murder.....

[TVR1]

perhaps this will get bumped to SP&L but for now it is definately news. I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up on yet but if I have double posted, sorry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-180942...

or, slightly more scroaty..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

Is there an increasing work load on the BiB/CPS that does not allow them to investigate every possible avenue? Or are we relying so much on 'technology' that 'they' simply ignore/discard/do not bother considering actual empirical and witness evidence if there is the slightest chance that DNA or other physical (read 'inarguable') evidence is put forward?

Just wondering....

[Sparta VAG]

TVR1 said:

Is there an increasing work load on the BiB/CPS that does not allow them to investigate every possible avenue?

Yes, but that's not the real issue with these and similar cases.

You can never truly investigate every last possible line of enquiry. In a complex murder investigation the number of enquiries to be made runs into the thousands, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. A well-rounded investigation will always aim to have as much witness, forensic, and other evidence as possible but sometimes it's just not there for any one of a number of reasons.

[anonymous-user]

I'll state now I know nothing about the case, which allows me to say without bias, that just because the conviction is not safe, doesn't mean he didn't do it. It means it can't be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, he may of course be wholly innocent, in which case it's a tragic incident.

The second case is a product of there being insufficient evidence to convict. This is more common.

It's not a reflection on the police / CPS workload. After the initial frenzy (for want of a better word) between a murder happening, arresting a suspect, charging them and remanding them within 3 days, the pace slows a lot. There is a lot of time between a murder occurring and it gong to trail. Time where all known, reasonable enquiries can be carried out to the satisfaction of the prosecution and defence.

[turbobloke]

From the first link: "Hallam's QC Henry Blaxland told the court that his client had been convicted following "a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case"

That's an appalling catalogue of incompetence. Will heads roll or is it more training and a promotion as usual?

[Eric Mc]

"Lessons will be learned" I suppose.

[Whoozit]

La Liga said:

I'll state now I know nothing about the case, which allows me to say without bias, that just because the conviction is not safe, doesn't mean he didn't do it. It means it can't be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - using the common sense test - for what happened. However in the first case it hinged on a definition of the law which means we had to find him not guilty of the specific charge, and in the second there just was not enough evidence.

[TVR1]

turbobloke said:

From the first link: "Hallam's QC Henry Blaxland told the court that his client had been convicted following "a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case"

Indeed. What I find slightly more disturbing is that the CPS and I presume, The Met, then colluded in hiding the same evidence at his original appeal in 2007. So, instead of admitting errors then, it took the CCRC and another force to investigate and discover the hidden evidence. I can't imagine it would have been a fun few years for the chap. For once, I really do hope he gets every penny he can in compensation, even though that won't get him back the 7 years he spent locked up.

[Sticks.]

Not forgetting that a murderer remains unconvicted.

[Saddle bum]

TVR1 said:

turbobloke said:

From the first link: "Hallam's QC Henry Blaxland told the court that his client had been convicted following "a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case"

Indeed. What I find slightly more disturbing is that the CPS and I presume, The Met, then colluded in hiding the same evidence at his original appeal in 2007. So, instead of admitting errors then, it took the CCRC and another force to investigate and discover the hidden evidence. I can't imagine it would have been a fun few years for the chap. For once, I really do hope he gets every penny he can in compensation, even though that won't get him back the 7 years he spent locked up.

It boils my p*** that in awarding compensation the Justice System annotatates the amount by the cost of "board and lodging" for the period of his incarceration. They are really giving the poor bugger two fingers. They never acknowledge liability because the system must be seen to be infallible by the public.

[youngsyr]

Whoozit said:

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - using the common sense test - for what happened. However in the first case it hinged on a definition of the law which means we had to find him not guilty of the specific charge, and in the second there just was not enough evidence.

Speaking to a policeman friend who has been doing it for 10 years, he hasn't yet seen a truly innocent person end up in court. His view is that in all likelihood a defendant had broken the law in relation to what they were charged with, but the issue was whether he was charged with the right crime, procedure had been followed and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Halb]

Eric Mc said:

"Lessons will be learned" I suppose.

"It's not a moment for soundbites but we're standing on the shoulders of giants."



Overused worn-out clichés, they're the butter on the bread of life.

[BoRED S2upid]

Does the poor bugger whos spent years in the nick get compensated? Im sure he has improved his skills base while hes been inside but he has been locked up for a few years when he shouldn't have been.

[rpguk]

Whoozit said:

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - using the common sense test - for what happened. However in the first case it hinged on a definition of the law which means we had to find him not guilty of the specific charge, and in the second there just was not enough evidence.

Fortunately the legal system relies on more then 'the common sense test'

youngsyr said:

Speaking to a policeman friend who has been doing it for 10 years, he hasn't yet seen a truly innocent person end up in court. His view is that in all likelihood a defendant had broken the law in relation to what they were charged with, but the issue was whether he was charged with the right crime, procedure had been followed and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that attitude is probably something to do why the poor lad was locked up while evidence that supported his claim was kept from the court.

Sad to note that his father committed suicide while he was locked up too

[matchmaker]

youngsyr said:

Speaking to a policeman friend who has been doing it for 10 years, he hasn't yet seen a truly innocent person end up in court. His view is that in all likelihood a defendant had broken the law in relation to what they were charged with, but the issue was whether he was charged with the right crime, procedure had been followed and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unbiased view of course

[EDLT]

Whoozit said:

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - in the second there just was not enough evidence.

So you just knew that the second person was guilty, despite a lack of evidence?

[philthy]

youngsyr said:

Whoozit said:

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - using the common sense test - for what happened. However in the first case it hinged on a definition of the law which means we had to find him not guilty of the specific charge, and in the second there just was not enough evidence.

Speaking to a policeman friend who has been doing it for 10 years, he hasn't yet seen a truly innocent person end up in court. His view is that in all likelihood a defendant had broken the law in relation to what they were charged with, but the issue was whether he was charged with the right crime, procedure had been followed and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jesus.
Why do we even bother with a judicial system eh?

turbobloke said:

From the first link: "Hallam's QC Henry Blaxland told the court that his client had been convicted following "a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case"

That's an appalling catalogue of incompetence. Will heads roll or is it more training and a promotion as usual?

I would be perfectly happy to see the individuals who "overlooked" or "forgot" the evidence that would have helped this mans defence, charged with PCOJ. Perhaps, after a few convictions, we might actually get those responsible, to be responsible?

Edited by philthy on Thursday 17th May 15:00

[Puggit]

Apparently a certain Det Ch Inspector Broster is responsible for this miscarriage of justice,

Unfortunately for the above named detective, he is also the man slammed by the coroner in the MI5 body in the bag case...

[Mojooo]

I;ve only read the BBC report but will read the full judgement from the Court of Appeal i its available online - it soudns like his defence team wasn't up to scrath by the sounds of it. It also soundsl ike the defendant didn't offer up as much info as he could.

There are lots of rules around disclosure - not sure they are the same now as they were 7 years ago but my understanding is that the defence can request access to most stuff the prosecution have if not all.

I believe the Police are meant to investigate every avenue even if it points towards innocence - but it is not clear, apart from an eye witness, why they pursued this guy if he was definitley innocent.

[Milky Joe]

philthy said:

youngsyr said:

Whoozit said:

This. I've just finished two weeks jury service. In both cases the defendants were absolutely responsible - using the common sense test - for what happened. However in the first case it hinged on a definition of the law which means we had to find him not guilty of the specific charge, and in the second there just was not enough evidence.

Speaking to a policeman friend who has been doing it for 10 years, he hasn't yet seen a truly innocent person end up in court. His view is that in all likelihood a defe ndant had broken the law in relation to what they were charged with, but the issue was whether he was charged with the right crime, procedure had been followed and it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jesus.
Why do we even bother with a judicial system eh?

I have never put someone before a court who I thought was innocent, for the simple reason that if I thought they were innocent I would bin the matter before it ever saw court.

[anonymous-user]

Mojooo said:

I've only read the BBC report but will read the full judgement from the Court of Appeal i its available online - it soudns like his defence team wasn't up to scrath by the sounds of it. It also sounds like the defendant didn't offer up as much info as he could.

Indeed.

turbobloke said:

From the first link: "Hallam's QC Henry Blaxland told the court that his client had been convicted following "a combination of manifestly unreliable identification evidence, the apparent failure of his own alibi, failure by police properly to investigate his alibi and non-disclosure by the prosecution of material that could have supported his case"

That's an appalling catalogue of incompetence. Will heads roll or is it more training and a promotion as usual?

The catalogue of incompetence sounds like it was the defence. It's their job to discredit 'unreliable identification evidence' and question the senior investigating officer at trial why there was an apparent 'failure by police properly to investigate his alibi'.