My son

[Rights Fighter]

It's a really good idea that you are preparing your lad for the trial. Complainants receive a form of coaching and in fact are often given a guided tour of the court room to familiarise themselves with it. That is all well and good when they are telling the truth but in our cases this only serves to promote "victimhood" in those who lie in order to gain added attention.

I am sure that there are many positive thought flowing from forum members to you, your lad and his family and friends.

[friday]

i wish your son the best. he must be terrified but at the same time won't want to burden you.

obviously i can't give any useful advice as i've never been falsely accused and i wasn't believed in court anyway....it seems there is no "right" way of speaking on the stand. mumble and you look uneducated, speak with clarity and consider your answers and you look calculating...whether it is good advice i don't know but i'd say being yourself is probably the wisest move. if you worry about how you stand/speak etc you won't be thinking so much about what you say.

on a side note: what is this coaching that victims are meant to get? i didn't get any and i only got to see my statement in the waiting room at court. hardly time to "rehearse". i did get a tour of the court though which was helpful in (slightly) reducing anxiety.

[Rights Fighter]

It seems Friday you were not offered the best of assistance. I am so sorry about that as clearly you could have put your case with more force, had you been given the right assistance.

In some trials I have attended responses from complainants under cross-examination had not been given in the way they would normally speak - therefore they had been coached. They used words and terms that they would not normally use, especially young children who often parrot adults who have coached them.

I am going through trial paperwork at the moment for an appeal and the way some statements read (witnesses for the Crown - not police officers) are not the words that these people would usually use. Much of the statements are written in some sort of "legal speak" when in fact these are broad speaking Brummies in real life. The way the statements were worded does not reflect the way they spoke at trial so clearly they had had "help" while writing their statements.

[worriedfather]

DNA retention

Hi Folks
I had a reply from the Home office regarding my questions regarding the governments plans for DNA retention. They say that the DNA will be retained for 3 years from the date that it was taken, no news on how plod will be able to ask for an extension but i will keep asking.
2 weeks to go before we are in court.

[witsend]

Dear worriedfather. Keep on bashing heads against the wall regarding the DNA issue. As you may have read we were lucky enough to have all our sons biometric data destroyed, this was due to the fact that our Chief Constable viewed his case as "exceptional", we count our blessings everyday for that but, and it's a BIG BUT, our son's life is still in tatters...serious panic attacks, anxiety off the scale which causes him to be physically sick and chronic paranoia. These women have absolutely NO idea of the suffering they cause. Keep us posted of how things are, how is your son holding up? You are in my thoughts

[worriedfather]

update

hi folks.
we have been to court and are now waiting for the verdict. it has been an absolute farce, started 6 hours late, not allowed to use some of the evidence as it was too complicated for the jury.
One of the jurors didnt turn up this morning and had to be fetched from the pub. one of plod "couldnt remember" what my son had told him at the time of arrest and then the judge said that plod should be believed as they told the truth!
OIC lied and told the jury that plod had searched his room and collected the evidence...... funny that i collected the evidence, again the judge said that it did not matter who collected the evidence and i thought that was plods job!
Summing up by Judge very biased, emphasis on what she and plod said whilst rubbishing what the defence said, even suggested that the "victim" might have forgotten that the accused used a condom!
if this is justice......

[Rights Fighter]

If the worst happens you might have some sort of arguments there to help appeal the conviction.

Is the barrister not leaping to his or her feet to argue all this nonsense or is he/she being to to be quiet?

[largactyl1]

Oh blimey, that sounds like, as you said, a total farce. Surely the barrister would tear the police officer to shreds for lying. And juries needing "dumbed down" evidence - if they are not bright enough to take things in then they shouldn't be allowed to be jurors! And as for fetching one from the pub......if this wasn't so bl*ody vital to your son it would seem like a joke. You couldn't make it up. I so hope it turns out ok.
Best wishes to you
Jen x

[Casehardened]

Summing up by Judge very biased, emphasis on what she and plod said whilst rubbishing what the defence said, even suggested that the "victim" might have forgotten that the accused used a condom!

This is unbelievable, I thought judges were in place to see fair play not take sides; whatever happened to the scales of justice?

Very best wishes

[largactyl1]

This is unbelievable, I thought judges were in place to see fair play not take sides; whatever happened to the scales of justice?

Very best wishes

Scales of justice - seems more like the leaky bucket of justice. Pah! Everything is topsy turvey. Seems I'm very naive. Hope the jury can see that this is not good enough.

Jen x

[worriedfather]

the Barrister was told to be quiet on several occasions by the judge, he seems very one sided and the barrister said that his summing up was biased towards the prosecution. the jury had questions that the judge said he could not answer as there was no more evidence and the police had done their "investigation" i think even the jury were concerned about the "investigation"

[Rights Fighter]

...some of the evidence as it was too complicated for the jury.

This concerns me greatly. Even if it was too complicated for the jury, if this evidence was for the Defence case then I believe that the Crown and Judge should have heard this evidence in what is known as a "Newton Hearing" (a "trial within a trial").

That means - without the jury present.

[LS]

Much as I hate to say it, WF, but I've given up expecting (or even hoping) for justice in this country, so none of what you describe comes as any surprise.

Just keeping fingers crossed against all odds that the jury may be able to share the one brain cell and conclude that the trial is a joke.
Thinking of you, it's not a nice place to be.
LS

[witsend]

Dear worried father
Not really a lot else I can add to the comments above, just seems unbelievable. Keeping you all in my thoughts.

[RFLH]

the same as what witsend has said - for once let commonsense prevail along with justice.