Feel so let down

[homeandaway]

My son after 14 months on bail has now been convicted. So many things were against him. He was interviewed before her statement was given, 1 witness was'nt interview at all and the other witness was interview 3 months later when he was arrested for a possesion of drugs and supply charge. My sons barrister sat on witness names for 12 months and never contacted them till a few weeks before and i was getting pictures of facebook hours before the case. The judge was venimous in his summering up and because a witness didnt give evidance because he drove my sons car drunk with no licience made the short statement to the police on his drug interview. The jury then took this as if his friend wouldnt testify there must be something wrong. The judge saying make that what you will. The girl was a good actress , but the judge wouldnt let my sons barrister use the drugs evidence, saying she might have used it because she was upset. I need to find someone who will see justice has not been done and can anyone recommend anyone in east yorkshire. It seems so corrupt.

[is there justice?]

I am so very sorry to hear this. You need help to find out if there are grounds for appeal, hopefully RF or one of the moderators will pick up on this.

Judges are always venomous once a guilty verdict is returned.

There seems to be little interest these days in ensuring someone has a fair hearing when things you consider crucial are disallowed and so not heard.

You must be in a terrible state of shock but I hope grounds for appeal can be uncovered.

[Rights Fighter]

The judge was venimous in his summering up and because a witness didnt give evidance because he drove my sons car drunk with no licience made the short statement to the police on his drug interview.


I'm confused. This friend made a short statement to the police on whose drug interview? Do you mean the friend or your son? What does the 'drug interview' whatever that is, have to do with the current matter? I am asking as I am trying to understand what you are saying before I can 'advise' properly.




The jury then took this as if his friend wouldnt testify there must be something wrong. The judge saying make that what you will. The girl was a good actress , but the judge wouldnt let my sons barrister use the drugs evidence, saying she might have used it because she was upset

How do you know that the jury took this as if his friend wouldn't testify, there must be something wrong? Did one of the jurors approach you afterwards and say that? If they did that would be wrong.

I am thinking from what you say, that your son's barrister wanted to bring in the complainant's 'bad character' using her use of drugs. Is that correct? If so, then bad character should not be brought into the evidence unless it is part of the case - ie - she said your son drugged her. That does not seem to have been alleged from what you say.

If she had claimed in her Victim Impact Statement or in her interview with the police, that she never uses drugs, but you had evidence that she did, then she would have been creating a false impression and the evidence of her using drugs, could have then been put to "correct the false impression". That is the sort of scenario where bad character evidence can be put.

Did counsel for defence make a document called an "Advice on Appeal?" That should set out why there are no grounds (or arguments for ground if he feels that there are some). Your son should have been sent one shortly after conviction/sentence.

[homeandaway]

Reply to feel so let down

the judge was venimous in his summering up and because a witness didnt give evidance because he drove my sons car drunk with no licience made the short statement to the police on his drug interview.


i'm confused. This friend made a short statement to the police on whose drug interview? Do you mean the friend or your son? What does the 'drug interview' whatever that is, have to do with the current matter? I am asking as i am trying to understand what you are saying before i can 'advise' properly.




the jury then took this as if his friend wouldnt testify there must be something wrong. The judge saying make that what you will. The girl was a good actress , but the judge wouldnt let my sons barrister use the drugs evidence, saying she might have used it because she was upset

how do you know that the jury took this as if his friend wouldn't testify, there must be something wrong? Did one of the jurors approach you afterwards and say that? If they did that would be wrong.

I am thinking from what you say, that your son's barrister wanted to bring in the complainant's 'bad character' using her use of drugs. Is that correct? If so, then bad character should not be brought into the evidence unless it is part of the case - ie - she said your son drugged her. That does not seem to have been alleged from what you say.

If she had claimed in her victim impact statement or in her interview with the police, that she never uses drugs, but you had evidence that she did, then she would have been creating a false impression and the evidence of her using drugs, could have then been put to "correct the false impression". That is the sort of scenario where bad character evidence can be put.

Did counsel for defence make a document called an "advice on appeal?" that should set out why there are no grounds (or arguments for ground if he feels that there are some). Your son should have been sent one shortly after conviction/sentence.

yes the friend was having an interview with the police 3 months after on the drugs offence and they said o while your here we will interview you about mr ------ who then gave a short statement to get out the station.

Yes another juror overheard and told barraster, and the police did a drugs test that took 6 months to set up apperently because she had traces of plant drugs and cocaine,after the incident her and he friend then went on to a party and the judge didnt want the drugs mentioned because he said she might have taken them because she was upset. She then went on a date with another friend.

[Rights Fighter]

Sounds rather odd. The statement the police took from the guy who was interviewed on a drugs matter - was that helpful to defence? Did you or your son ever see it?

the judge cannot refuse to admit evidence on the proviso that she could have taken drugs because she 'might have been upset'. That all could have been clarified pre trial anyway. If the police went to the trouble of setting up some sort of 'drugs test' on the girl - why would they do that if they had no intention of using it? No need to answer that as you won't know why either. It might be worth asking an appeal sol to investigate that a little more - it should be mentioned in what is known as the CRIS report - Continuous Record of Investigation Sheet.

Re the juror - so a juror went to defence counsel and said that there must be something wrong if the other guy wouldn't testify? Was this unanimous or majority verdicts by any chance? At least one of the verdicts must have been, for one to take the trouble to say that to defence counsel.

Do you have any idea why the guy would not testify for your son? (This is the one who was interviewed on drugs allegations - yes?)