Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
gooner1 said:
Apologies if I have missed the answer to this
but why should it be the Prosecution, or the Investigating officer,
who decides what evidence is relevant or not to the defence?
That is what the law says. There is a disclosure officer whose job it is to look at everything and decide what can be disclosed because it is not the norm to disclose everything.but why should it be the Prosecution, or the Investigating officer,
who decides what evidence is relevant or not to the defence?
Jerry Hayes, prosecuting counsel who discovered the evidence, writes in the Times today about the effect of austerity on the CJS. Cut after cut is increasing the risk of miscarriage of injustice.
(paywall)
https://www.thetimesbrief.co.uk/users/39175-the-br...
(paywall)
https://www.thetimesbrief.co.uk/users/39175-the-br...
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 15th December 13:38
ChemicalChaos said:
It seems his legal team were deliberately denied access to them:
"Mr Allan’s lawyers were denied access to the woman’s telephone records after police insisted there was nothing of interest for the defence or prosecution"
That's nothing short of outrageous, and both the way the woman and the police officer need some serious jail time
Somebody would have signed the file off stating there was nothing known that would assist the defence or undermine the prosecution case - clearly not correct in this case. "Mr Allan’s lawyers were denied access to the woman’s telephone records after police insisted there was nothing of interest for the defence or prosecution"
That's nothing short of outrageous, and both the way the woman and the police officer need some serious jail time
The disc and its contents would surely have been listed within the file and reasons for non disclosure declared.
Earlier this year the HMIC expressed concerns in relation to Police disclosure of material. My force has recently rolled out a training programme to address this issue.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/ne...
“We found in this inspection that the police recording of both sensitive and non-sensitive material was lacking, which creates uncertainty and confusion for prosecutors. In turn, this poor practice was not being challenged by the CPS. This has resulted in a lack of confidence in the disclosure process on the part of the judiciary. We urge the police service to address these shortcomings in accordance with guidance and the code of practice. We have made recommendations to the police service and governing bodies to help improve these areas.”
Edited by Bigends on Friday 15th December 14:03
Edited by Bigends on Friday 15th December 14:10
Bigends said:
ChemicalChaos said:
It seems his legal team were deliberately denied access to them:
"Mr Allan’s lawyers were denied access to the woman’s telephone records after police insisted there was nothing of interest for the defence or prosecution"
That's nothing short of outrageous, and both the way the woman and the police officer need some serious jail time
Somebody would have signed the file off stating there was nothing known that would assist the defence or undermine the prosecution case - clearly not correct in this case. "Mr Allan’s lawyers were denied access to the woman’s telephone records after police insisted there was nothing of interest for the defence or prosecution"
That's nothing short of outrageous, and both the way the woman and the police officer need some serious jail time
If ive read the report correctly nobody had actually gone through the contents of the disc to establish what it contained and then to decide whether or not disclosure was appropriate or not
Where is the evidence of guilt?
gooner1 said:
Apologies if I have missed the answer to this
but why should it be the Prosecution, or the Investigating officer,
who decides what evidence is relevant or not to the defence?
Well, in the good old days, the prosecution had to disclose all of the material that they had tripped up over during the investigation and prosecution of a case.but why should it be the Prosecution, or the Investigating officer,
who decides what evidence is relevant or not to the defence?
The stuff that they decided to use in court was called evidence and the rest became unused material.
The defence solicitor used to be able to see all of the information, both the evidence and the unused.
These days the unused material is only disclosable at the discretion of the disclosure officer.
The reason? Well, it all comes down to money.
Defence solicitors used to be paid by the hour. It was quite common for them to spend countless hours sifting through unused material on a massive fishing expedition, all at the taxpayers' expense.
Don't get me wrong, the majority of criminal defence lawyers worked very hard for modest returns and played with a straight bat. Sadly, there was also a bunch of them who milked the Legal Aid fund with wholly unjustifiable and wasteful examination of mountains of irrelevant unused material.
So the rules were changed and it saved a whole pile of money.
saaby93 said:
I know I keep saying this but all that is evidence to prove your innocence - you shouldnt need it and besides it may not be available
Where is the evidence of guilt?
That's very naive - and shows a lack of understanding of how things work in investigations/ the criminal justice system/ courts.Where is the evidence of guilt?
Someone came forward and accused this dude of something.
It may not have been sufficient for him to just stand there and deny everything.
This evidence put a different slant on things.
He needed it.
The end.
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the guy illustrated in the 'sympathy' story above should have thought twice about the implications of driving while under the influence PLUS having cannabis stashed in his car? Legal fees he says would be three hundred odd quid plus vat. Now, I agree if on low wages, that's hard to find. He has a partner on low wages too.
Perhaps prioritise your life more in keeping within the law of the land.
I don't drink and drive because I treasure my licence.
I wonder how much the weed cost?
I'm not surprised that something like this has happened but I am amazed it's happened in such an important case.
In my force we've long argued that we should just simply hand over everything to the CPS and for them to decide on disclosure but they're so underfunded that it just isn't possible and so it is just a mixed bag. They don't even have time to look at trial evidence sufficiently in advance.
I can't believe that the OIC is so dishonest that he/she has lied, knowing that the messages were there and knowing the risks of being caught. Police are under pressure to take all sexual complaints seriously and investigate them thoroughly but I've never been pressured into getting a charge out of something although it may be different in other areas.
I would like to believe that the OIC simply never saw the messages and just held the phone in store until requested by the prosecutor but even this is difficult to understand if the defence repeatedly raised a defence and requests. It should've been looked at at the first opportunity.
I also know that in The Met's sex offence dept, officers have over 20 live rape investigations each on their books which is an impossible caseload to look at with new jobs coming in all the time.
However, none of that is the fault of the person accused.
The OIC is in a serious amount of trouble with this.
This is why I will never go back into CID, not until proper funding comes back in at least.
In my force we've long argued that we should just simply hand over everything to the CPS and for them to decide on disclosure but they're so underfunded that it just isn't possible and so it is just a mixed bag. They don't even have time to look at trial evidence sufficiently in advance.
I can't believe that the OIC is so dishonest that he/she has lied, knowing that the messages were there and knowing the risks of being caught. Police are under pressure to take all sexual complaints seriously and investigate them thoroughly but I've never been pressured into getting a charge out of something although it may be different in other areas.
I would like to believe that the OIC simply never saw the messages and just held the phone in store until requested by the prosecutor but even this is difficult to understand if the defence repeatedly raised a defence and requests. It should've been looked at at the first opportunity.
I also know that in The Met's sex offence dept, officers have over 20 live rape investigations each on their books which is an impossible caseload to look at with new jobs coming in all the time.
However, none of that is the fault of the person accused.
The OIC is in a serious amount of trouble with this.
This is why I will never go back into CID, not until proper funding comes back in at least.
Red 4 said:
saaby93 said:
I know I keep saying this but all that is evidence to prove your innocence - you shouldnt need it and besides it may not be available
Where is the evidence of guilt?
That's very naive - and shows a lack of understanding of how things work in investigations/ the criminal justice system/ courts.Where is the evidence of guilt?
Someone came forward and accused this dude of something.
It may not have been sufficient for him to just stand there and deny everything.
This evidence put a different slant on things.
He needed it.
The end.
no phone may have been available
You cant be banged to rights just because you cant prove youre innocent
TheBear said:
I can't believe that the OIC is so dishonest that he/she has lied, knowing that the messages were there and knowing the risks of being caught. Police are under pressure to take all sexual complaints seriously and investigate them thoroughly but I've never been pressured into getting a charge out of something although it may be different in other areas.
I would like to believe that the OIC simply never saw the messages and just held the phone in store until requested by the prosecutor but even this is difficult to understand if the defence repeatedly raised a defence and requests. It should've been looked at at the first opportunity.
I also know that in The Met's sex offence dept, officers have over 20 live rape investigations each on their books which is an impossible caseload to look at with new jobs coming in all the time.
However, none of that is the fault of the person accused.
The OIC is in a serious amount of trouble with this.
This is why I will never go back into CID, not until proper funding comes back in at least.
I don't believe the disclosure officer (probably the OIC too) is accused of lying. I would like to believe that the OIC simply never saw the messages and just held the phone in store until requested by the prosecutor but even this is difficult to understand if the defence repeatedly raised a defence and requests. It should've been looked at at the first opportunity.
I also know that in The Met's sex offence dept, officers have over 20 live rape investigations each on their books which is an impossible caseload to look at with new jobs coming in all the time.
However, none of that is the fault of the person accused.
The OIC is in a serious amount of trouble with this.
This is why I will never go back into CID, not until proper funding comes back in at least.
Jerry Hayes speaks about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-423655...
dandarez said:
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the guy illustrated in the 'sympathy' story above should have thought twice about the implications of driving while under the influence PLUS having cannabis stashed in his car? ...
Magistrates report that the number of people appearing in court without a lawyer has risen by a quarter in three years. The survey found that 30% of all criminal defendants they saw at their last session had no lawyer, up from 24% in 2014.
The problem even extends to crown courts, where the most serious cases are heard. More than 6,000 people appeared in crown court without a lawyer or had unknown representation at their first hearing last year – that’s 7% of all defendants. In 2013 this proportion was 5%.
94% of magistrates believe that having people in court without lawyers can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the court process. This figure has stayed the same since a survey in 2014, suggesting little has improved in the experience of defendants without lawyers while their numbers have risen.
Of the 370 magistrates surveyed, 40% said having no lawyer had a bad impact on effectiveness in most or all cases. A further 53% said it did so occasionally.
In more than 160 anonymous written submissions, magistrates’ concerns include that defendants without lawyers are being found guilty of crimes they did not commit and being sentenced too harshly.
dandarez said:
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the guy illustrated in the 'sympathy' story above should have thought twice about the implications of driving while under the influence PLUS having cannabis stashed in his car? Legal fees he says would be three hundred odd quid plus vat. Now, I agree if on low wages, that's hard to find. He has a partner on low wages too.
Perhaps prioritise your life more in keeping within the law of the land.
I don't drink and drive because I treasure my licence.
I wonder how much the weed cost?
The Legal Aid fixed fee for a guilty plea to possession of cannabis and drug driving would be £248.71+VAT.
But Legal Aid would rarely be granted for simple possession and drug driving, so I suppose that's hardly relevant.
This chap could have had the court duty solicitor for free. He faced an imprisonable offence and almost all of the duty dogs that I know would have happily bobbed into court with him.
Pat H said:
Well, in the good old days, the prosecution had to disclose all of the material that they had tripped up over during the investigation and prosecution of a case.
The stuff that they decided to use in court was called evidence and the rest became unused material.
The defence solicitor used to be able to see all of the information, both the evidence and the unused.
These days the unused material is only disclosable at the discretion of the disclosure officer.
The reason? Well, it all comes down to money.
Defence solicitors used to be paid by the hour. It was quite common for them to spend countless hours sifting through unused material on a massive fishing expedition, all at the taxpayers' expense.
Don't get me wrong, the majority of criminal defence lawyers worked very hard for modest returns and played with a straight bat. Sadly, there was also a bunch of them who milked the Legal Aid fund with wholly unjustifiable and wasteful examination of mountains of irrelevant unused material.
So the rules were changed and it saved a whole pile of money.
Understood. Not much money saved in this case though.The stuff that they decided to use in court was called evidence and the rest became unused material.
The defence solicitor used to be able to see all of the information, both the evidence and the unused.
These days the unused material is only disclosable at the discretion of the disclosure officer.
The reason? Well, it all comes down to money.
Defence solicitors used to be paid by the hour. It was quite common for them to spend countless hours sifting through unused material on a massive fishing expedition, all at the taxpayers' expense.
Don't get me wrong, the majority of criminal defence lawyers worked very hard for modest returns and played with a straight bat. Sadly, there was also a bunch of them who milked the Legal Aid fund with wholly unjustifiable and wasteful examination of mountains of irrelevant unused material.
So the rules were changed and it saved a whole pile of money.
I wonder how much it has cost other defendants, in repect of loss of liberty, jobs etc.
Speed 3 said:
Posters are asking why the lad didn't show his side of the text flow but according to the current BBC News version, it is understood (source ?) to be the texts to the "victim's" friends that nailed the case, not those necessarily between complainant and defendant
That was my understanding too.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff